People "conflate" the two because that's the logical implication of the phrase when one does not have the historical context of living through and being aware of the early days of the open source movement. Words do have meaning. You're just adding additional meaning to them that is not commonly understood.
Attach the same adjective to "park" or "road," and you'll understand my frustration with people claiming dominion over the word, "open." You don't have an obligation to cut the grass or fill a pot hole.
If you want people to understand what you mean, use more specific language like, "copy-left." That was a fabrication of the open source movement and doesn't clash with commonly understood language. If they don't already understand the jargon, at least it will be obvious, and they can seek out the definition.
No, I don't care what some open source foundation defines it as. I don't recognize their authority to extend the definition of the word, "open."
Attach the same adjective to "park" or "road," and you'll understand my frustration with people claiming dominion over the word, "open." You don't have an obligation to cut the grass or fill a pot hole.
If you want people to understand what you mean, use more specific language like, "copy-left." That was a fabrication of the open source movement and doesn't clash with commonly understood language. If they don't already understand the jargon, at least it will be obvious, and they can seek out the definition.
No, I don't care what some open source foundation defines it as. I don't recognize their authority to extend the definition of the word, "open."