> ...like banning folks from downloading, or interacting with your bug tracker etc. Often those bans will be ineffective [including because the folks you banned can interact with an intermediary]
You miss the point. I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll see if I can expand and reiterate. Seeing this whole reply now, I apologize for the length. You might go back up to the parent comment and re-read what I was addressing: the claim that one's ability to "ban" is "not even OSS". Regarding ban evasion through Tor or similar, that plays into whether a ban is technologically feasible -- rather than about ability and freedom to make your choice in the first place -- and I won't address it further here.
If I don't want to interact with someone, I make that choice for myself. No open source license prevents me from making and implementing my choice for myself. If I previously chose to interact with someone and am now no longer willing to do so, then open source licenses have either no continuing obligations (eg BSD) or extremely low continuing obligations (eg GPL).
(If someone knows of a license that meets the Open Source Definition, to use a handy threshold, which does in fact require me to interact when I would prefer not to, then I would appreciate the counter-example. In fact, when I wrote "low" in my parent comment, I was thinking specifically and only about the GPL's requirement to provide source code for 3 years after interacting with a party, so I'd appreciate any counter-example that requires more than that.)
If others choose to interact with that same someone, then that is their choice, not mine. I am not a party to their interaction with that same someone. I may even choose to now include them in the list of people with whom I will no longer interact -- but that only goes forwards and does not change prior interactions -- and whether I even desire to make that choice is now getting far away from the topic of ability to make that choice.
My choices not affecting other people is very much in the spirit of open source and FLOSS, as I understand them.
The part that you quoted from the Open Source Definition is that the license cannot have discrimination terms. That has nothing to do with whether I choose to interact with anyone else on any basis that I choose, regardless of whether that basis is socially acceptable or not.
What that OSD requirement does do, however, is prevent my interaction choices from affecting others when I use an open source license. You might imagine a hypothetical license that discriminates against particular nationalities or industries, and contrast that with someone who uses open source licenses while still refusing to interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or North Korea, to use two current, real-world examples.