[supriyo-biswas]

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

[bruce511]

I use "shipped as source". My code is not "open" and I'm very careful never to label it as such in verbal or written communications.

I think the word "open" belongs to OSS, not proprietary code, and I would politely suggest and recommend, you never use that word to describe your offering. (Ditto "free" :)

[fastball]

Definitions are not static. If the majority of people who say "open source" mean "I can view the source, it is out in the open" vs the OSI definition, then the definition of the word is the former.

Just like how the word "hacker" meant one (generally positive) thing, then it meant computer criminal, and now it has come back to be somewhere in the middle.

Of course it is your right to fight for whichever definition you prefer, but the idea that anyone has a monopoly on the definition and can claim a term "doesn't mean that" is a bit silly.