Right. Neither is “Open Source.” At least not any more so than “general relativity.”
It very obviously is.
And the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” is not just “you can see the source code”
You said that already and I’ve already explained why that’s irrelevant.
And you’re telling a community explicitly about the OSI’s definition of “Open Source” that “Open Source” doesn’t mean what the OSI says it does.
That’s absolutely not what I’m doing. There can be multiple definitions without any of them being wrong. Ever read a dictionary before? Ever seen words that has >1 definition? Spoiler: it’s almost all of them.
Your can say a project is “open source, as defined by OSI” but you can’t just declare other projects aren’t open source because they don’t fit a definition decided by a particular authority.
There are plenty of authorities that define specific words and phrases for specific purposes, they don’t nullify the common basic understanding of those words and phrases.
that’s pretty fucked up
It’s not “fucked up”, it’s a fact. You cannot assign malice to facts. They just are.