Readit NewsOpen Source might be a bit more complicated to explain because there actually seems to be multiple groups under it. A big part of it is more about a development method where you develop the software out in the open, allowing anyone to contribute. This was made popular by Linux and is now pretty much used by all Free and Open Source Software projects. People in this community will often say this is a superior way to develop software over other methods and allow you to create better quality and more reliable software. Then there is the group that prefers permissive licenses because it is more business friendly as described by this post. Then more recently is this new group that wants to restrict a bit on the usage of their software with licenses like the Commons Clause and the Server Side Public License. I know many don't consider these open source, but it is a valid concern for these type of projects and they are originally open source projects trying to figure out a solution.
I'm not saying which term is better, just explaining why "open source" might not be objectively wrong in this case.
Where do they define this? In the OSI definition it doesn't mention having the source available for everyone, only that whoever has the program should be able to get the source[0]. I do believe it doesn't follow "open source" the development model where development is in the open and anyone can contribute.
Just think about it: Technically it would be no big problem to enforce speed limits widely. The technology for speeding cameras isn't exceptionally complex, you could mass-produce them and deploy them basically in every street. I'm not aware of any country doing that.
WTFPL is probably the only real "free" license.
Free software works for devs and geeks, yes and I happen to be one of them. But for common people? Usually not very good, as they don't know the terminal and don't know config files. I know, because I tried to spread linux. It is hard work.