Languages don't work like that. You don't just come up with a definition and try to force everyone to use it. People learn definitions from how they are used an

Languages don't work like that. You don't just come up with a definition and try to force everyone to use it. People learn definitions from how they are used and mentioned in the things they encounter. In reality almost no one is aware that OSI definition exists and those who do can't even remember what it is exactly. So, no, de-facto definition of open source is definitely not an OSI definition, but mostly literal meaning of open source software with most people presuming freely usable software as well to some degree. Take SQLite for example, it's open source, but not OSI open source and everyone is ok with that. Because this is where common meaning is. And trying to claim authority over it just invites bad PR for OSI. I guess OSI is already that irrelevant and it's pretty much consequence free to use a proper common meaning of open source.