That's not how it works. They're entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own dictionary.

When you combine two words into a fundamentally novel phrase, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contributing to the global (or in this case, anglophone) dictionary.

So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have a private idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?

Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic.

Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.

The phrase was first applied to software by the drafters of the Open Source Definition.

Be that as it may, it's a generic phrase, as evinced by its prior usage in other fields like intelligence and journalism. Lacking a trademark, OSI has zero authority to word-police everyone else. No amount of plugging their ears and chanting lalalala will change the fact that OSI does not own exclusive rights to the phrase "open source." Not with respect to software, not with respect to anything else.

The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.

"Steal" and "child" likewise lack any trademark protection.

So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.