I did not. I just fail to see how it isn't obvious to anyone who gives two thoughts about how the term "open source" is being used, so I wanted you to explain it.
> For people willing to agree to the terms, it is open. For the people unwilling to agree it is not.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any logical sense. You can easily extend that to "for a person willing to buy the copyright from me, it's open; for a person unwilling or too late to buy it is not". How many people can you exclude until such a license stops being "open" in your book? This approach dilutes the meaning of the term so much that it completely ceases to be useful. I honestly can't understand how does that make any sense to you.
> Your assertion that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar is problematic.
That's not my assertion. If I saw entire communities using the term in conflicting ways, we would be having a completely different discussion. That's not the case though, the flamewars were always being fought in the exact opposite direction by people who perceived copyleft as "not open enough" (and even they usually didn't contest the meaning of the term, just argued about their own stance). In my experience, "Open Source" has always meant what OSI has defined, to the point that I don't even see it as being actually defined by OSI, but rather that OSI has written down the meaning that was already agreed on in practice (it's heavily based on DFSG after all). It wasn't until relatively recently that some projects started to claim being "open source" despite of not actually matching the definition. The benefit for them from doing so is obvious, and when they argue for the definition to become broader this is clearly a classic conflict of interest. I can't agree to that, because this dilutes the meaning of almost two decades of my work. Go use another term, this one's already taken.
> A license by its very nature restricts things.
That's absolutely not true. In many jurisdictions, a license is pretty much the only tool you can use to unrestrict things, the only alternative usually being a Public Domain dedication (which isn't even available at all in some parts of the world). By default, all your rights are reserved and nobody can use your software unless you give them an (explicit or implicit) license. Open Source licenses are meant to unrestrict your code as much as possible, only allowing some specific kinds of restrictions that are meant to protect the unrestricted nature of your code and to give you attribution for your work. That's it, that's the universally agreed meaning that was in use for a very long time now. You can't get to restrict arbitrary things on top of that and still call it open. Sure, you can argue that your particular ideas for restrictions are also meant to protect people's rights, but to make it actually accepted as "Open Source" you would have to convince the community (not just OSI!) to reach consensus that this can, in fact, still be called Open Source. And that's clearly not what's happening, so if you continue to use this term in the wrong way, I can't see it as anything else than being malicious.
