FWIW, open sourcerers do that all the time labeling the kernel linux as open source; if they can, why shouldn't others? to me, it comes across as some poetic justice: after open source's distortion of free software to appeal to corporations (tons of people still think free software is only copyleft, thanks to open source campaigning), the corporations give open source some of its own poison
Huh? I don't understand. As far as licensing is concerned, "open source" == "free software". The Linux kernel *is* open source. It's also free software. If the distinction you're thinking of is "copyleft" vs "non-copyleft", that's independent. Both copyleft and non-copyleft free software licenses are *both* open source and free software, and always have been. I'm not aware of any OSI or other movement campaigning to get copyleft licenses designated as something other than "open source" -- copyleft has been open source from the beginning, and I wasn't aware of any disagreement on this point among practitioners.