This is why, despite the Stallman-type connotations, I have started exclusively using the term “free software” to call what I used to refer to as “open source”.

Lesser reason: Lots of software is source-available, but isn’t free-as-in-freedom in my view (including the AGPL!) and distinguishing that is very important for anyone involved in a business that uses software. The last thing an entrepreneur (who already deals with tons of existential risks) needs is an additional risk uncertainty. Free software is (in most cases, Oracle’s fuckery excepted) a bright line there.

(Sorry for veering off of the direct topic of TFA.)

One of the requirements for Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition is that you can use it for any purpose: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". It makes sense to interpret "open-source data" the same way. The problem here as I see it is not the way the term "open-source" is used, it's that there should be legal safeguards preventing personal information of others from being shared as "open-source data" without their consent.

This is the original meaning of the term ‘open source’, long before software. The software people shouldn’t have tried to repurpose an existing term. This is why they couldn't trademark it!