In my opinion, the Free Software Foundation, ironically, since they invented the movement, with open source starting out as a tacky rip-off with the ethics stripped out. After decades, open source converged on free software.

More popular opinion is OSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative

They were founded by the persons who (claimed to have) invented the term in order to steward it. It's the same definition as the FSF.

The people who created the term: the Open Source Initiative.

Before, people most often used "free software" as defined by the free software movement, but some disliked this term because it's confusing (most think "free" means no money) and perceived to be anti-commercial.

The term "open source software" was chosen and given a precise definition.

It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation when it was specifically chosen to avoid confusion.

> It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation

I disagree. You're saying that they "invented" the term, but it's a very generic term. The source is open, it's open source. I bet people were using the term before they claim they invented it.

In that context, it is very fine to use a different definition and in fact here's my definition, and I guess most people (maybe not on HN) share it: if the source is visible by the general public, it's open source.

For what you mean, I use "FLOSS".