[type0]

Open source concept existed before OSI, it has originated from Debian Free Software Guidelines. OSI has only standardised it. To claim something else is disingenuous and at this point it's proven to be a robust definition. FSF has their own, older and not too dissimilar.

> other definitions do exist that don’t meet OSI’s standards. The term doesn’t belong to any one organization.

And all attempts to redefine what open source means fail, because both FOSS camps OSI and FSF/GNU as well as everyone in between see it for what it is: attempts to muddy the water in order to deceive users and customers. Your software is either FOSS or it's not, there is no scale here, it's a social contract. Just because there are a bunch of ambiguous licenses that no-one knows what to make of, doesn't mean there are two or more concepts. There's only one concept for both "open source" and "free software" and the difference is philosophical.

[dahart]

Nobody tried to redefine “open source” here in this thread. @xenago jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

> There’s only one concept for both “open source” and “free software”

Well neither OSI nor FSF agree with this statement. You’re on your own there.