[pessimizer]

> I can see your organization tries to make sure that there is an approved set of principles that identify libre/free software which is good.

The OSI doesn't define what Free/Libre software is, the Free Software Foundation does. The OSI is in charge of the common definition of "Open Source" software, which is accepted outside of non-software or idiosyncratic usages (such as "open source is when I show my references" or "open source is when I derive my conclusion from publicly available information" which is becoming the common definition in the intelligence field.)

It's good when we have a common definition, and discuss that definition rather than the label; it's a waste of time to argue "of course it's organic; it's carbon based!"

One thing that we can both agree on is that more people are familiar with the OSI's definition of "open source" than are familiar with your personal definition, so it's probably more productive to talk about the one more people are familiar with.