Sure, but I think companies are actually abusing the common definition of open source (which roughly has been the OSI one) by calling their source-available (but private licensed) stuff “open source.”

> Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses.

1. They aren't written by or copyright or anything to the OSI. They aren't "OSI Licenses" they are "OSI-approved licenses"

2. The Open Source Definition as clearly defined by OSI (and accepted as the only consensus definition in the world) does not include OSI-approved as a factor. So, a license can be Open Source without the OSI having done the active approval to validate that they see it as Open Source.

OSI-aligned might be a better term.

Which is why I am using "open source". You are free to use "non-OSI source" for your stuff.

The only thing you are saying is that "open source" sounds nicer and you want it for your term instead. Too late.

"Open source" was used to refer to source-available material for decades before it ever OSI ever existed. This is the reason why OSI can't get a trademark on the term -- UTPTO won't let you trademark a generally descriptive term already in use.

That's nice, but just says that it used to mean something else and you are bitter about it.