I'm not sure what you mean. I was replying to user twr who said:

> Perhaps the open source movements should seek intuitive definitions of terms rather than invent vague nomenclature that only makes them unable to communicate with normal users.

The "open source movements" he/she mentioned have very technical definitions of what open source means (of varying degree, of course, but have you tried reading the GPL? Do you think it's non-technical?). Of all the valid criticisms you could throw at them, "vague nomenclature" is not one. Their definitions of open source may be difficult to communicate precisely because they are very technical, not because they are "vague".

I think "who" was quite clear in this context. Do you disagree?