I don't really want to debate with you here, and if anything I feel like the points you are hammering on just fortify my stance that this topic is a waste of breath.

> The OSI is merely pointing out that it will make everyone's lives easier if developers try their best to use one of the licenses that already exists

Maybe, maybe not! Perhaps existing licenses are not sufficient. I doubt we'll be using the same licenses in 100 years. I bet there are better licenses waiting to be authored -- maybe TFA's license is the future?

> > The OSI includes GPLv3, which is certainly not "free" for a ton of commercial uses.
>
> Incorrect. Commercial customers are free to use, modify, and redistribute just like everyone else. They can even sell a product based on it - they just can't keep any changes they might make closed source if they do so.

Look, I live in the real world. If I link to a GPLv3 library in my product, I have to release all of my source code. This is potentially a pretty big burden on a lot of folks. Sure, there's a lot of legal FUD, but unfortunately, while FUD, has a very real impact. Lawyers won't sign off on a lot of this stuff.

> Take a look at some of the approved licenses - for example AGPL, GPL, MPL, and MIT. In _all_ cases I'm free to modify and redistribute. In some cases I might be required to make my changes available, but never am I barred from making use as I see fit. Source available is simply not the same thing.

AGPL is defacto banned at most companies, such as Google, which has this to say[0]:

> The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.

Gee, that sure sounds "open" to me.

Grouping AGPL and MIT in the same bucket is borderline harmful -- they're wildly different! This is what I mean when I say the term "open source" is a fuzzy descriptor. You can't have a fuzzy descriptor and then complain about things which don't fit your worldview. That's what the OSI basically does in a nutshell with their "Open Source Definition".

> It is _not_ subjective, but convincing others that it is can sometimes confer monetary benefits. This is precisely why such pedantry exists in great quantity surrounding the topic.

I agree we shouldn't accept anyone abusing the term for profit. At the same time, I don't think it's appropriate to conflate themes of "encumbered" or "burdensome" or "infectious" with the word "open" -- that is just as misleading and confers a different set of benefits that are not universally appreciated.

And one final thing: Just because I disagree with OSI's terminology doesn't make me incorrect. Statements like that come off as abrasive and trend towards a hostile, gatekeeping tone. The term you're looking for is "I disagree". It's easy to interpret your worldview as very small. If I polled a group of random software developers about what open source meant to them, I would be surprised if any of them referenced the OSI definition. Most developers would, sadly, conclude "stuff on github".

[0]: https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/