The OSI definition is useful as a baseline. When people argue over what open-source means, I think they can mostly agree on that definition. On top of it we see frequent arguments over authors' responsibilities and appropriate stewardship.

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.)