We are not redefining what it means; that the source is available does not make it Open Source. It's pretty clear, but Google is the SSPL open source and you'll find pages and pages of EFF/FOSS etc articles and explanations why it cannot be open source because section 13. It's AGPL (which is Open Source) with that section added.
No, I just stick to the meaning of words. "Open source" was always "source is available" + conditions and there were always some people who didn't like them. The opposite is of "open source" is "closed source"
By that definition Windows is open source. The Linux kernel, Vim, and Microsoft Windows are all "open source" because all of them are "source is available" + conditions.
Do you think this is the definition of open source that people use?
The AGPL was a direct consequence of companies taking FLOSS software and turning it into de facto closed source because they weren't actually 'distributing' anything.
So...they came up with a new licence to force said companies to comply with the spirit of the GPL if they wanted to voluntarily use the software as a part of their business venture.
There are a lot of shady people trying to redefine source available proprietary licenses as being Free Software or Open Source, which already had a definition by the people who coined the terms dating back to the 1980s, long before they showed up.
If they were honest, they could come up with their own new acronym and market it as better than OSS but, no, they're trying to hijack the meaning of "FOSS" so they can use it for their marketing. If they're being this blatantly untrustworthy out in the open, we can be sure that more sleazy behavior is to come later.
