> We have definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available I think you mean more marketable. "Source available" is extremely accurate and descripti

> We have definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available I think you mean more marketable. "Source available" is extremely accurate and descriptive. It's not as sexy, though, and that's the real reason people in favor of broadening what "open source" means don't like to use the available alternatives that actually apply. They want the shine of "open source" without having to meet the criteria. This isn't a problem of language. It's a problem of a group motivated by self-interests wanting something that is directly at odds with what their marks want. Not unlike, for example, used car dealers wanting to put their ads in the "for sale by owner" section and being unhappy about being excluded because it means because of all the people who will only see ads by folks who aren't dealers, when that's the whole point. See also: men who can't hit on women in spaces where men aren't allowed.