> I think "open source" as you describe it is broken and unsustainable,
Then dont claim to use an open source license. Its just recently people have felt foss is commercially viable. For most of its history people believed that foss was not commercially viable. That's why it was considered a radical view.
You want to have the cake and eat it too. You're trying to ride the wave of goodwill that open source provides without paying your dues. Yes open source makes it harder to be commercially viable. If it didn't, if it only provided benefits, everything would be open source.
> But if we can't agree that the definition of "open source", like any word or phrase, can change over time
If i sold nut free chocolate bars, and then someone died of alergic reaction, to which i responded by saying, definitions change over time peanuts arent included in nut-free, would you accept that?
Yes, words can in principle change over time - but you can't just change meanings unilateral, especially not as part of a false advertising campaign to mislead users into thinking you are something that you are not.
