It's very confusing when someone said it's open source when it isn't actually open source.
I quite literally grew up with the specific definition. If people decided to redefine open source software, then I'll need a new specific definition, because it's no longer useful or fit for the purpose.
Not sure that the definition was fit for purpose in the first place. A perfectly reasonable understanding of Open Source is that the source is open (whether conditions are attached or not).
And if you then object to conditions being attached to how you use it, perhaps you should also consider the onerous conditions imposed by the GPL license.
It wasn't reasonable to me that open source software just means only source code is available. If people insists that the way it should be used, then I would abandon the term for something else.
