Well if we are talking about the point of open source, then really, the lack of restrictions is the point. Some commercial entities wish to redefine the term because it benefits their marketing, but is that the line we want to draw in the sand?

Well, you see you are absolutely correct.

But unfortunately none of the "True Open Source" crusaders I have seen so far can think beyond their tribalism-based schism.

It's not "open source" because it's not free software. We do not have access to the training data (source code). We cannot make new versions by editing the preferred representation. It's a big closed source blob released by a corporation that does a cool thing. At best, it's freeware.

If it were really "open source", nobody would be complaining about its moralizing attitude. They'd just make a new one, without the attitude.