You make a perfectly circular argument. We shouldn't call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source" because companies will call things th

You make a perfectly circular argument. We shouldn't call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source" because companies will call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source". In other words, "open source" is valuable because it's OSI's exclusive intellectual property. Its utility lies in exclusion and control. If you want to retreat to "principles", that's fine. But then you'll have to deal with how poorly OSI and FSF definitions express them, differences of opinion among members hidden behind handwavy vague definitions, and a long history of inconsistent results on specific licenses. I have no idea how any of this makes it easier for companies to disregard copyleft terms. Diffusion of copyright ownership and constant initiatives to discourage enforcement, by giving up rights and including by vilifying those enforce theirs, make it easy for companies to disregard copyleft.