[jsty]

Open Source has been so well understood to mean a certain set of things within the technology industry now that making changes to that definition would just cause unnecessary confusion (beyond what already exists between OSS and FOSS ...). Quite possibly the author is just annoyed his portfolio companies get pushback when taking about "source available" or proprietary licenses to potential customers, but leaping from there to "our customers want open source, thus open source must change to mean what we want to give our customers" is fairly dramatic.

Honestly, I think this editorial could have done with toning down the rhetoric a bit - calling people / groups names ("wonk tank") and generally implying those with the opposing view are irredeemably "short-sighted" isn't particularly persuasive and just detracts from the author's points.