My point was that accepting OSI’s terminology maintains a status quo that is harmful to innovation and harmful to independent software developers. You’re ceding control over what licenses are acceptable to a closed-membership non-democratic entity that isn’t a professional association. I choose not to do that by rejecting their terminology as a necessary first step.

You can easily release something with a shared source/source available license that doesnt make it open source. You can also dual license gpl/proprietary use license

> release something with a shared source/source available license that doesnt make it open source

I already described problems with that approach up-thread. People attack software that uses non-OSI-approved licenses and accuse it of "open washing" even if it avoids the term "open". Or they attack it for not being "open source" and refuse to use it, even if they're not working at a cloud provider or competitor, and are completely unaffected by the extra license terms.

In any case you're repeatedly saying "open source" when you actually mean "OSI-approved", which is the entire thing I'm railing against here.

> You can also dual license gpl/proprietary use license

That solves literally none of the cloud provider problems I've described above.