Taken literally these words could mean something else, but they don't. And using them in a wrong, hoping that people will confuse them for something they like (free speech for phones is good, right?) is extremely dishonest.
The OSI definition was elevated over others (to the extent that there even are any others) by usage. You can dislike that all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Maybe, in time, usage will flip the meaning to something else... English has a way of doing that. But let's not stick our heads in the sand and pretend that current reality is anything other than what it is.
Except.. it kinda is. I mean yes, it is obviously true that words can (and do) have multiple meanings. But within a given context, there are "generally accepted" definitions and there are idiosyncratic / obscure / unusual definitions. And in the kind of context we're talking about here, to use "Open Source' to mean anything other than what is defined by the OSD is to intentionally choose a non-standard, idiosyncratic definition. It wouldn't be reasonable for one to do that and then expect everybody else to understand / agree with their non-standard usage.
The way most people have been using “open source” is a lot closer to OSI than these companies are claiming. It’s misleading to use a different definition nowadays. And I think that’s the actual intent. If it wasn’t, then they’d be perfectly fine with using another unambiguous term like “source available.” If there was a strong desire to be clear and not misleading, they’d use such a term.
The point is to demonstrate that the term predates the OSI's alleged coinage thereof. They don't get to dictate language. This usage pre-exists them and obviously persists to this day.
> Using the term "open source" without any definition is useless. If we can't agree on a definition, it's impossible to know if we're actually talking about the same thing.
Really? It seemed quite useful to the people cited in each of those earlier prior references. They seemed to know exactly what they were talking about in context. You have only to read the messages to see that.
> I want people to use the OSI definition in order to elevate debates.
No, I think you want people to use the OSI definition because that conveniently includes certain clauses that have nothing to do with being open source, much like the FSF's definition of free software has nothing to do with freedom.
> Endless debating the meaning of "open source" is a huge waste of time.
You're right. Equally useless is attempting to privilege the OSI's definition over others.
> Given that OSI is the only body I know of with a clear definition, let's use theirs and move on to more substantial topics.
The numerous citations you are now aware of make you aware of others with a clear definition, so... No.