I explained how SCOTUS would explain what the text means under the guideline of legislative intent (you'd probably arrive at the same conclusion under the principle of plain meaning). Legislative intent is explicitly trying to understand what a law means by understanding what the legislature intended it to mean, so whatever funky definition the OSIA and Linux Journal comes up is completely and totally irrelevant under that standard.

I don't know the jurisprudence of Australian law to understand how Australian courts would interpret the text, but I would honestly be surprised if OSIA's purported interpretation were accepted.