There isn't a singular definition of open source that everyone agrees with.
That some people - like yourself - want to muddy the waters is neither here nor there.
To some people Open Source means that the Source is publicly viewable. It doesn't say anything about your rights to use it commercially. This is why people often bring up definitions such as "libre", "free as in beer" or "free as in speech"
The real question is why are you trying to muddy the waters of the existing term, rather than inventing your own term and getting people to use that?
Why are you pretending you get to define the english language for everyone?