> if Nokia (or the cited article) gets the term "open" all messed up,
> either accidentally or on purpose, doesn't make the term "open source"
> itself ambiguous in any way
I somewhat disagree. One of the benefits of the term "open source" is that
people are supposed to already have a reasonable idea of what "open" means
which is close to what we mean by it. I was pointing to this as an example
showing that it's a more vague term than we tend to believe.
> The term "free" is as ambiguous (or more), in any case.
True, ish, certainly. But I think once you mention freedom, you're closer
to people understanding you than when you mention openness.