The #openwashing tag on the fediverse is probably the big key to this.
What's going on is that compliance with the OSD was never required by vendors, only by licenses. Culturally, the line of "open" is being pushed farther towards non-free.
By the strictest definition (the FSD for free and the OSD for open-- which incidentally is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written by OSI co-founder and 2nd Debian Project Leader Bruce Perens) the latest license to appear like it will gain OSI approval is the CAL license.
Where is this going? The term "Open" is being used increasingly by things that are not actually OSD-compliant. That's the meaning of #openwashing and there are plenty of examples. You might find some here: http:/techrights.org/category/openwashing
Apart from co-founding OSI, Perens has left in protest not once, but twice-- the first only one year after it was founded:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1 ... 01641.html citing that open source "has overshadowed free software" (and that it never should have) and that the term open was already being misused, even 20 years ago.
He recently resigned (from the OSI board) again, citing familiar reasons.
He also tweeted late last year that there was a plan by some people at OSI to end Stallman's career, but he never supported it. This tweet came up not long after Stallman's resignation on Sept. 16th.
OSI tried to trademark "Open Source" decades ago and failed. As it becomes more generic, the term can be legally abused in any way people want. That's probably the goal of openwashing, but we are already there. Also note that Perens had complaints about this 20 years ago (same link.)
I was an Open Source supporter, before OSI was even a decade old. Like Perens and OSI, I left in protest because I felt that Open Source rewrote history to steal credit for too much of what the FSF deserves more credit for.
And I don't like when people lie to me while asking for donations, whether they can legally get away with it or not. I've preferred "free software" ever since. No matter how much Phipps says they're the same thing-- I consider one way more honest. Way more honest.
With that said, this wave of corruption and erosion of principles isn't affecting Open Source alone. That's because those responsible have moved from their Open Source "base" and onto Free Software's turf. That's where the war is happening now, at the FSF and FSFE, as we speak.
I've spent the past 7 months writing about this regularly, so if this seems a little over the top-- it's not. This is the real world we live in. Microsoft (AND IBM, AND Google) are making a lot of progress moving into our jurisdiction and sticking their flags in. It's only fair to let people know. If this interests you, there is a lot more to say.
OpenTelemetry should bother everybody-- It's a Microsoft+Google project. They're
supposed to be enemies. And systemd is owned by IBM while being developed on Microsoft servers-- that's an IBM+Microsoft project (so was OS/2 and Windows NT, they collaborated on over a billion dollars worth of research.)
The only thing that is likely being violated from a legal standpoint is the mission of OSI. But organisations like OSI can do that for decades, no problem. Their stakeholders aren't going to do anything, and they won't stray far enough to lose their 501c corporation.