I’m not sure why it bothers me: I use the word “Free” when I’m talking about “Free Software”, and “Open” when I mean “Open source”. I’m very particular about my words, that way. But that’s just me. I don’t expect another religion to follow the rules of my own, or vice-versa.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about the meaning of “open source” being eroded thanks to the likes of Centric CRM and Microsoft with a feeling that Microsoft is out to “corrupt the meaning and value of ‘Open Source’.”

Microsoft is redefining "open source" using media muscle and sponsorships.

Preluded by the discomforting subject line “Microsoft infiltrating into open source world,” we have just received a headsup from an anonymous reader.

Microsoft's latest attempts to abuse, misuse and exploit "open source" as a term are noted

“Open Source” advocate: «...I associate much more with the "Open Source" (also as Richard defines it) camp, and am open to the existence and use of proprietary software...» --

In light of very recent news, consider just how Microsoft is already abducting "open source" and changing the rules

New examples of possible "open source" abuse (for marketing purposes)

Convictions such as this one have become more common because the “open source” definition is being hijacked, deformed, diluted, bobbed of its spirit. Here we present yet another new example.