Furthermore, it's really hard to define what non-commercial actually means. Creative Commons spent something like a decade trying to scope a reasonable definition and eventually ended up essentially punting. With a few exceptions like (arguably) secondary public education use, pretty much any non-trivial use has some commercial component.

> you're not FOSS

> don't call it FOSS

The grandparent comment clearly said OSS.

Their statement is just as true if you insert "OSS" instead of "FOSS".

Playing the semantic game over what is or isn't "open source" is very draining sorry.

If I can look at it, that's open source software to me, you can define that phrase however you want and I'm happy with that too :)

There is no semantic game, open source software is a term of art with a much more specific meaning than the source being available. If you find this draining then you can simply stop trying to misappropriate the term.