Open source goes back almost a century, and does mean access to the source code. GPL was created, and other licenses, to allow more than personal use.

GPL is one kind of open source, not all. That’s why I specified OSI.

For government work, I care about OSI, not if people can just see and not legally change, contribute, and redistribute.

I think government should fund global goods and want to be precise in my language. So when I say “open source” I specifically mean OSI-licensed stuff.

I specifically said "and other licenses", so why would you respond, as if I acted as if GPL was the only license?

No matter. One entity doesn't get to unilaterally redefine a century old term. You claim you want precision, well then specify OSI, a subset of open source.

(And yes, the licenses it approves are indeed a subset.)

One entity is the de facto organization that I, and many others trust to shepard this important definition for society.

Using precise language is useful for building software (and in general life).

I like that OSI exists and helps people understand a specific and desired definition for open source.

There’s a lot of thought on this topic by really smart and skilled people. The aspects of open source that I think are most important are captured in OSI.

For me, I don’t care if I can see the source, if it’s not free and usable. I can decompile code and patch for myself without a license. And I can pay for code in escrow.

But what’s important is that I can modify and redistribute. And that I can be part of a virtuous community creating things together.