Thanks for putting it like that, it's completely true and I agree. Many people have an understanding and expectation of Open Source that not even the definition of Open Source agrees with (https://opensource.org/osd), which is contributing to this problem. That was a bit of the point of my comment.
The article doesn't require anything, but in general, most people see OSI as the organization who stewards a lot of things around in the Open Source world. If people cannot even agree about the definition of Open Source, we're in for a real treat now when companies start to abuse it.
> You can say that you use a more restricted definition, and that is it.
Again, I'm not going by my own vision of Open Source (as the article's author does), I go by the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source, which again, you can read here: https://opensource.org/osd
Looks like I've accepted that it's a broad term used in a lot of contexts. So having somebody give their angle on it before using the term is already pretty good by my standards. But maybe I'm being too liberal here. What parts do you see people expecting in open-source that go against the OSI definition?
(I can't help but note that you and the author write Open Source with caps which does actually suggest there is a specific meaning.)
The article does not require you to share that definition. And haggling over the precise definition of open source does not change their argument one bit. You can say that you use a more restricted definition, and that is it.