No, it's a term-of-art. When people muddy the waters and try to undermine the standard terminology of a field, it's not some righteous struggle to liberate a term, it's just an obstacle to clear communication.
In aviation, flap is a precise term-of-art, and is never used interchangeably with aileron, despite that an aileron is plainly a kind of flap (in the colloquial sense). If you adopt your own definition of flap, to refer to both flaps and ailerons, no-one is going to sue you, but no-one is going to know what you're talking about. Your use of the term will be considered not merely different, but wrong.
Similarly, you could try telling a physicist that you consider the words power and force to be interchangeable. They're not going to sue you, but they're also not likely to entertain your deliberate misuse of standard terms.
Are pilots and physicists gatekeeping by being so insistent that you use their terms their way?
But it’s not a term of art, when it was first used it had a broad scope for more or less anything where source was made available to users of software.
The OSI definition is a newer more narrow definition adopted long after the term was in broad use.
And fundamentally, the literal meaning of the words open and source do not have connotations beyond the source being available for viewing.
> when it was first used it had a broad scope for more or less anything where source was made available to users
I'm not sure the early history of the term really matters. Presumably early aeronautical engineers and early physicists had to all agree on the terms of their field. It's fortunate that they did so, and now that their field is mature, their terms are clear and unambiguous.
Someone without an education in physics might not be able to intuit that physicists use the terms strength, hardness, and toughness in distinct and precise ways.
> The OSI definition is a newer more narrow definition adopted long after the term was in broad use.
I'd say it's a more considered, more precise, more meaningful definition.
> the literal meaning of the words open and source do not have connotations beyond the source being available for viewing
I already gave the example of flap, a precise term-of-art in aviation that reuses a non-technical English word in a way that cannot simply be intuited.
I also don't see that open needs to be a synonym of viewable. I think it's fine that open be used to refer to something broader, as in the Open University for instance. [0]
Apparently the OSI was founded February 1998, the same month the term open source was first coined [0][1]. The OSI says [2] The Open Source Definition was then created during the launch of the OSI in Feb. 1998 by revising the DFSG and removing Debian-specific references.
This seems to indicate that the OSI's precise definition was pretty much there from the beginning, unless they didn't really coin the term open source and it was floating around beforehand. I've heard from others that open source was in use before the OSI definition, so perhaps that's the case.
As I mention in my response though, I don't think the term's early history much matters.
You say you’ve heard that but you cannot find the proof, because if it was in use, it was only used occasionally. They coined the term and they gave it the definition.
No, it's a term-of-art. When people muddy the waters and try to undermine the standard terminology of a field, it's not some righteous struggle to liberate a term, it's just an obstacle to clear communication.
In aviation, flap is a precise term-of-art, and is never used interchangeably with aileron, despite that an aileron is plainly a kind of flap (in the colloquial sense). If you adopt your own definition of flap, to refer to both flaps and ailerons, no-one is going to sue you, but no-one is going to know what you're talking about. Your use of the term will be considered not merely different, but wrong.
Similarly, you could try telling a physicist that you consider the words power and force to be interchangeable. They're not going to sue you, but they're also not likely to entertain your deliberate misuse of standard terms.
Are pilots and physicists gatekeeping by being so insistent that you use their terms their way?