> Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

Agreed, but are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

> (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)

Do any of these principles or definitions from these orgs agree/disagree with that?

My hypothesis is that they generally would go against that belief and instead argue that open source is different from source available. But I haven't looked specifically to confirm if that's true or not, just a guess.