often depends who you ask, istr stallmans take on "open source" is that the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source.
i don't really condone stallmans biased and divisive position on this, but it is exemplary of the kind of conversation we're wading into with opinions about what it means historically.
e.g. https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-fr... under "A Surreal Situation"
