If you define triumphs to include only 'popularity' and developer preferences, then sure, its triumphant.

> using a license like the Business Source License indicates a lack of belief in the vision of open source

The issue is that the vision of open source itself is lacking, because it doesn't recognize that it fails to provide a pathway to being compensated and rewarded, tangibly, for building, contributing, and maintaining open source software and the infrastructure that supports it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, that people are interrogating whether that (inarguably) already established (arguably) "true meaning" is a good one.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the frustration people feel at new debates popping up over definitions that they feel are already perfectly good. But it's not up to you or anyone else individually; the way people use language broadly evolves all the time. It's useful to advocate for why the existing definition you prefer is the right one, but less useful to primarily focus on "we already have a definition of this, that's the only thing it could ever possibly mean!".

You surely meant to say it's a triumph of Free Software? /s