Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with?
Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular.
Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not?
In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark:
https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist:
I think you are exactly correct.
It's deeply disturbing that the OSI out of one side of their mouth says "indie developers, you should forgo any right to your own software or not truly open-source" and out of the other side of their mouth collects donations from giant internet monopolies that freeload...
MIT/BSD/Public Domain licenses long pre-date the OSI.
The FSF is it's own thing...
What's even the point of the OSI beyond trying to pressure developers to drop their creations into the public domain to be stolen?
The OSI definition was accepted due to corporate lobbying and I imagine this probably also includes astroturfing to apply pressure on companies who don't go "all the way" and basically subsidise their competitors for free.
This gives me strong ElasticSearch vibes - everyone got mad at Elastic for changing the licence, and no one gave a damn about Amazon building a moat around the technology, profiting massively from it yet leaving the burden of maintenance to Elastic.
Anti-disclaimer: I have zero affiliation towards this project or company.