Open-source doesn't necessarily imply everything that the FOSS and GPL folks think it does outside of their semantic bubble. It's one of those bastardized terms that has become so mangled and situationally-dependent as to be almost meaningless.
For a significant number of people "open-source" just means, "I found this on GitHub"
It hasn't, though. There's at least two different organizations that work to concretely operationalize what "open source" means. People may be confused about the term, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to educate about it, and it definitely doesn't mean we should let other people go on polluting the ontological space with garbage that seems intentionally designed to confuse.
No, I'm well aware of what open-source is supposed to mean, as opposed to shared-source or whatever the proper term is for that type of arrangement.
I just try to deal with the world as it is, and the damage has been done already to the popular meaning of the term. I don't have the energy or interest to tilt at this particular wind-mill, so at this point if somebody says something is open-source, unless I have prior knowledge of what they think open-source means, I can't really infer anything in particular, and have to ask some more questions.
So this is just a very harsh discussion of semantics? Moreover, one where the argument is based on common understanding of a term, rather than a literal interpretation of the term.
Because a literal interpretation of open-source is a system where the 'source'(code) is open (to read). Indeed many people understand it to mean more, but that doesn't make that understanding indisputably correct.
"Open" doesn't mean "read", it means "freedom". If I look up the definition of "open-source" for instance on Wiktionary [1], it says "permit modifications and redistribution" (and refers to the OSI definition).
For a significant number of people "open-source" just means, "I found this on GitHub"