I'm well aware of who you are and that you wrote the non-FOSS license in question, which is part of why it seemed worth the time to respond to address the misinformation. I don't have any expectation of convincing you, only of making sure nobody else mistakes your work for contributions to FOSS. When I said that Parity is "more dangerous if you're not deeply familiar with license minutiae and history", I wasn't suggesting you were unfamiliar, but rather, that you've built a trap for others.
I'm also aware of the history of OSI, and in particular that it learned from early mistakes and created a narrower set of recommended licenses, and actively pushed back against further license proliferation. And yet it seems like you now want it to approve licenses again, as long as they're licenses you wrote.
> You've left some space for constructive criticism, but only nominally. Apparently any deviation from your definition of "open" means I not only get discounted, but need to be actively opposed.
On the contrary, there's absolutely space to improve. But not every change is an improvement.
Also, it's an unpleasant rhetorical trick to attempt to marginalize the OSD as "your definition of open", as though you have an equally valid one.
Constructive criticism and manufacturing confusion don't mix. Constructive criticism needs more clarity and distinction, not equivocation and imprecision.
> But our disagreement is demonstrably narrow: if I struck one numbered item from Parity 6, I take it you might approve!
Not even close; Parity isn't salvageable. By the time you remove enough from it that needs removing, what's left is then just a gratuitously incompatible software license. (As a side note, I can appreciate its approachable style, and if it had come about years ago or if provided a path to compatibility with existing copyleft licenses, that would be a useful property rather than a trap.)
Among other things:
"Contribute", clause 1, requires public publication rather than providing source to people who received a binary.
"Prototypes" clause 3 requires publication of private changes, and infringes freedom zero.
So does "Prototypes" clause 1.
And, of course, "develop, operate, or analyze" completely breaks freedom zero.
Also, from the realm of opinion rather than fatal problems: The link to an anti-copyleft organization should go, the "defense" clause should allow defensive patent usage, and "Protoypes" clause 2 adds a giant loophole ("non-production user testing") that's only mitigated by "Prototypes" clause 1 and 3.