The first sentence of that paragraph being:

  Although the OSI definition of "open source software" is
  widely accepted, a small number of people and organizations 
  use the term to refer to software where the source is
  available for viewing, but which may not legally be
  modified or redistributed.

Which is exactly the point I wanted to make: that there is no one true definition of open source and that, although most technically inclined people agree, there is room for confusion/disagreement.

If these sorts of contributions are worthy of downvotes these days then I really don't know what I'm doing here anymore :S