Sure, but the title change is strange. I'd even say changing the meaning makes it outrage bait in the first place, because now HN has taken a stance, where before it was just the article author's opinion.
But with this title, the discussion can be drawn towards the question of whether the license would or wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source, rather than whether it meets each commenter’s own definition of open source, which would be a much less gratifying discussion.
(I've frequently suggested title changes to HN's mod team, I'm pretty familiar with this.)
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29425675> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42679582>