[eesmith]

The argument is that open source is based on "contempt for property."

Yet most open source projects use a license based on copyright, and copyright is generally considered part of "intellectual property" as it draws from property ownership as its model.

Without strong copyright, there is no effective GPL.

I therefore do not see any connection between open source and contempt for property. Certainly less contempt than I see from capitalist corporations which use open source components in proprietary products and in violation of the license terms.

As for your "kind of by definition can't be open source", I'll kindly direct you to a counter-example at https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html which includes both "SQLite Is Public Domain" and "SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those copies, without limitation."

You'll find very few people who argue or believe that SQLite is not open source.