Ironic. 'Gaslighting' is a term which specifically means manipulating someone into doubting their own memory and sanity by constantly contradicting what they have experienced. Co-opting it to mean any kind of misleading language dilutes the original meaning and is attempting to tap into the significant negative connotations of the term.
Behavior which explicitly meets your definition is seen a lot too in openwashing, like claims that the OSD retroactively defined "open source" or that there's never been a consensus on the meaning.
But your definition is exceedingly specific, to the point of rendering the term much less useful. Here's the Wikipedia definition given verbatim:
> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes such as low self-esteem. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.
I agree that it's often falsely claimed that 'open source' was co-opted, though I suspect this is quite frequently not deliberate, since the term has become so common it seems 'obvious' that it was commonly used before being coined by the OSI (I in general support using the term 'open source' precisely, and I was in support of those calling for the removal of its use to describe this license). But I still think gaslighting is the wrong term to use for doing this (the wiki definition you've given doesn't differ significantly from what I said). revisionism, maybe, and it certainly doesn't match the definition and context in which it was used in your comment above.
