I think the point he was trying to make is that he rejects your definition of the term. As do I; notwithstanding what some foundation or some famous hacker thinks, you need a fairly broad consensus to really define a term.
I don't think that your definition of "open source" (or even "Open Source") meets that test. I think most people probably still think of it meaning that all of the source code is available to you to read/modify/compile.
What set of legal restrictions govern that is another can of worms. The software might be illegal, patented, or otherwise restricted, but those issues are independent of whether the source code is available or not.
Comments
I think the point he was trying to make is that he rejects your definition of the term. As do I; notwithstanding what some foundation or some famous hacker thinks, you need a fairly broad consensus to really define a term.
I don't think that your definition of "open source" (or even "Open Source") meets that test. I think most people probably still think of it meaning that all of the source code is available to you to read/modify/compile.
What set of legal restrictions govern that is another can of worms. The software might be illegal, patented, or otherwise restricted, but those issues are independent of whether the source code is available or not.