"Open Source" itself is already a re-definition.

The creation and deployment of the GPL license was touted as "free software".

While "Open Source" uses the same licenses, the motivation is completely different. Profit .vs User Freedom.

Why should institutional users of s/w create there own and share it, when vendors who will collect billions over the lifetime of their users will "give" "free" versions of the s/w to them?

It's like giving the school children free heroin and calling it philanthropy...

p.s. In my youth, big tobacco did in fact hand out free cigarettes outside of the high school...

“…if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you'll have to pay Meta to use it. That's not open source. Period.”

Apparently the author is not familiar with the free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer distinction.