Some people have internalized the words "open" "source" to mean more than the words, even going so far as to eschew the benefit (which was at the heart of the Stallman problem) because it doesn't fit the desired ethos and license. It's counterproductive, indeed.
People use the term to refer to a proprietary definition from the OSI, which is an OK convention. I just wish they would capitalize it, and leave the normal interpretation of the words also available.
> People use the term to refer to a proprietary definition from the OSI
some people do. A vast minority of the superset. Most people (person on the street) take the words "open source" at face value and dispense with the whole idea when faced with a needless ideological argument. This specific process of thought is casually observed in most entry compsci highschool/college classrooms. The whole point of open source was to achieve a goal, which has ironically been subject to feature creep.
