One part I think is unnecessarily controversial:
> It does not mean it is free and open-source (FOSS).
This is another old argument that it's pointless to re-litigate, but one should at least note that this way of using the term ‘Open Source’ contradicts the OSI definition and risks causing avoidable misunderstandings.
[1]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
The entire dictionary is nothing but consensus on terms with no trademarks (and from which government?) anywhere.
OSI merely presents a definition as a service, for others to have something already thought-out to refer to rather than have to write a 10 page definition every time someone wants to refer to the concept.
It is well established by now, and the only people trying to argue about it are simply uneducated or have some deliberate agenda where they somehow benefit from artificially clouding an issue that has already gone through a process of being hashed out and recorded long ago. There is no reason to give them any air.
Nobody was even talking about law until you chimed in.
Believe it or not words can mean things in English independent of whether there is a court case establishing that meaning.