This conversation has come up again, the Open Source versus Source Available debate.  A couple of things occur to me as I've been thinking about this. 

The Open Source movement picked a bad name.  The term "Open Source" just doesn't  encompass all of the nuances of this licensing model.  Sure, I understand that the ability to branch code, and having the license to do anything are essential concepts to the success of some software projects, but these don't seem to have anything to do with the "Source" code being "Open."

Perhaps it's time for a new name for this kind of software, perhaps it's too late.  I dunno.  I can't help but think in bad analogies, so here's one:

At one time, Vegetarian meant "I only eat veggies."  Everyone who mostly ate veggies started using the name, and so a new name was needed for those that really only ate veggies - Vegan.   This worked out for them.  Sure, they could have spent their time chastising everyone who used the term vegetarian, to keep the moniker pure, but they just moved on.  It was a helpful thing for them to do. Now, when someone says I'm a Vegan, we know exactly what they're talking about (and not to invite them over for dinner).

Perhaps a new name is needed for true Open Source.  That way, when I want to compile my own version of the app in question, I only need to make sure it's "Open Source." This is the reason I love Community Server, to me it's "Open Plenty."  When I want to use code in another app, start a business around it, or be completely unfettered to do whatever I feel like with the code, I need this other thing... Vegan Open Source?