What gives OSI the dictatorial authority to make the final definition of open source?
It doesn't really matter who defines it as what. What matters is what people mean when they say it.
It doesn't really matter who defines it as what. What matters is what people mean when they say it.
Most developer just uploaded their project to GitHub and attached a license. If OSI defines some licenses as open-source or not is irrelevant. Legally only the license is binding.
In the end for open source to be open source it should be publicly accessible.
Anything else should be defined in the license as the maintainer/creator wishes.
The only argument against that would be that the term has gained popular usage outside of the open source community and become a generic term. I haven't heard or seen any argument that that should be the case.