The crusade against open-source abuse

This stuck out to me:

  OSI, which has somehow anointed itself as the body that will “decide” whether a license is open source

Isn't 'open source software' a trademark owned by OSI, and the actual words "open source" invented by the people who started OSI? Which would make the above a tautology. Before OSI there was "free software" but no "open source software", and the meanings subtly differ.

I can be wrong here, and I don't directly see a clear answer on the OSI site site

I hope they will rename "Commons Clause license" to "Santa Claus license" before Christmas.

Not another one of these proprietary-source-masquerading-as-free apologist articles. At least it's less tone deaf than the last one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17951235), but it's still rather tone deaf, accusing the OSI's declaration that the license isn't open source of being "myopic" and calling them policy wonks for like, just getting in the way of business, bro.

If the OSI is as incredibly irrelevant as the author claims, why even try and work with them? If you believe they're just "policy wonks" and have no other effect, what gives?

Maybe this guy has a point somewhere but I can't help but get distracted by the fact that people who think the way I do are being talked down to.