I certainly don't recall a "media storm" about the OSI in 1998, and I was a hobbyist DOS software programmer who was active on BBSes, newsgroups, and web forums

I certainly don't recall a "media storm" about the OSI in 1998, and I was a hobbyist DOS software programmer who was active on BBSes, newsgroups, and web forums at the time. I'm sure it was a bigger deal among the Linux and BSD and Free Software folks, but that was a relatively small niche at the time, compared to the software industry as a whole. In any case, OSI didn't create this term, they were denied a trademark on it, and they didn't actually create any of these licenses. They aren't the government, and they aren't the dictionary. The default state of affairs is to not care about their definition. You need to give reasons why we should care about their arbitrary definition. A "media storm" is just a marketing campaign, and that hardly seems like a good reason for an entire industry to strictly follow something. I'm especially disturbed by how some strict adherents of the OSD seem to go out of their way to attack non-FOSS licenses and the software authors who adopt them. The negative comments on the recent Fair Source threads here seem to indicate that any attempt to adopt non-OSD source-available licensing will be attacked as "open washing", even if the authors don't use the word "open". I don't understand why people feel justified to act as self-appointed Terminology Police on behalf of an arbitrary definition from a random small nonprofit. This is cult-like behavior.