It's not that the OSI has a faux trademark—it's that the OSI coined the term, its definition, and the OSS community grew around those. Before the coining of the

It's not that the OSI has a faux trademark—it's that the OSI coined the term, its definition, and the OSS community grew around those. Before the coining of the term, source code being able to be looked at was never called "open source." It wasn't until the OSI initiative that this was the case, and we (observably in this article) see the effects of that effort today. To adopt the term and use the decades of effort to give it the usefulness and meaning it has today while admitting you are absolutely not adhering to that meaning (OP admitted as such in the license) is an abuse of the term at the least. It's certainly not a practice that is beneficial for anyone except the abuser. I want to say that I'm very glad that OP made the source code available to look at—it's very generous in the context of the game industry! I simply just ask can we not take advantage of the work of others by misusing the term "open source" and try saying something like "Even the Ocean is on GitHub!" or "Even the Ocean's git repo is public!"