[arpinum]

I'm ok with saying that Open Source is now widely understood to mean what the OSI says, that's just a function of how language evolves. But we don't need to re-write history to get there.

Open Source isn't a brand, it isn't a trademark, it was hijacked by OSI to enforce their specific interpretation of a phrase that was already in use. OSI wasn't founded until 1998, over a decade after the term open source software became popular and was used throughout the unix and linux communities and in businesses such as Caldera. Before OSI came up with the OSD many creators of open source software had non-compete clauses in the licence.

[mrob]

"Open Source software" was never a popular term before the OSI promoted it. "Open Source software" is a reworking of the original term "Free software" to be more palatable to businesses. The Open Source Definition is very similar to the older Free Software Definition and virtually all software qualifies as either both or neither.

[Izkata]

Likewise I feel like it only became "the common understanding" due to pushing within the past decade. Before that "the common understanding" was what people are only now calling "source available" - which I don't think I'd heard of before just a couple years ago.