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.

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.)

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.