[lmm]

> I’m a fan of OSI, and their definition of “open source” is widely recognized, but still, language policing usually turns out to be incorrect.

I'm no fan of the OSI, but language policing usually turns out to be correct. There are other definitions of open source - the free software definition, the DFSG - but in practice they're all close enough that the differences don't matter.

> OSI didn’t invent the term open source, and like it or not, other definitions do exist that don’t meet OSI’s standards.

Very few. I don't think there's any nontrivial software that doesn't meet the OSI's standards but is recognised as open-source by anyone who isn't a) a paid shill or b) a self-important provocateur who wrote it.

> I don’t understand the confrontational stance either, with code being offered to individuals. That far exceeds what most companies do, in terms of serving the open source community, no?

Companies are trying to salami-slice away the rights users expect from open-source software. The response to that has to be a firm line in the sand.