[Lapha]

>as open source really does only mean source available

The definition and history of the term as a licence is unambiguous in that the only restriction on redistribution is that it contains the source code under the same licence. There are senior engineers alive today that weren't even born when this was the commonly understood meaning of the term, it's not a new concept.

The term and usage is being co-opted these days but that's bound to happen when it's not a legally protected definition. Give it another 10-20 years and I'm sure we'll be having the same argument over whatever term ends up replacing 'open source'.

[yieldcrv]

I’m all for “language evolving”

Language exists to convey a shared concept

In this case, the evolved version of open source fails to convey a shared concept in comparison to the prior term, “free and open source software” or FOSS for a shorthand adjective

Here, people with knowledge of the lexicon are using it accurately, and people without knowledge of the lexicon or its etymology are complaining when they should be pushing for FOSS instead of getting surprised everytime