But that's not what that's defined as.
The OSI defines open source one way, and I just defined open source another way. This is an inconsistency that trips up lots of people on HN and elsewhere. There isn’t one definition, there are many, and calling “anybody but the mega-rich can use this for free; they have to pay” open source falls within some definitions but not others.
The OSI's definition is the widely accepted one. If you mean something else, then make up your own word. To redefine open source like you're trying to do just makes communication more difficult for no benefit.
Why shouldn't they be the ones required to "make up their own word"? "Open source" has a reasonable plain english meaning which doesn't automatically include all the requirements of OSI's "definition". I don't see why the simplest plain english interpretation shouldn't be considered "the real one".
You say OSI's definition is "the widely accepted one", I'm 100% certain that's not true if your sample group is representative of "english speakers" instead of "hacker news readers".
(And I'm pretty sure your linked xkcd supports my argument here more than yours.)