We shall not challenge the OSI and FSF definitions, because every principle that they defend is not only worth protecting, but under attack by bad interests. "Challenging" these is how you end up being gaslit by companies which are abusing the open source brand to peddle software that isn't. And such muddying of the waters makes it easier for companies to disregard the terms of copyleft licenses. This is non-negotiable: non-commercial licenses ARE NOT OPEN SOURCE, and people who argue for this are actively causing harm to open source. I expected better from you, Matt.
However - by no means am I suggesting that non-commercial licenses or licenses which don't meet the other OSI or FSF criteria are wrong, or cannot be used to do good - nothing of the sort. But you need to give it another name. Some projects are using "Fair Source", for example.
You make a perfectly circular argument. We shouldn't call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source" because companies will call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source". In other words, "open source" is valuable because it's OSI's exclusive intellectual property. Its utility lies in exclusion and control.
If you want to retreat to "principles", that's fine. But then you'll have to deal with how poorly OSI and FSF definitions express them, differences of opinion among members hidden behind handwavy vague definitions, and a long history of inconsistent results on specific licenses.
I have no idea how any of this makes it easier for companies to disregard copyleft terms. Diffusion of copyright ownership and constant initiatives to discourage enforcement, by giving up rights and including by vilifying those enforce theirs, make it easy for companies to disregard copyleft.
OK, the Prosperity license and others like it shouldn't be called open source. I should have been explicit about that, as I believe Kyle Mitchell (author of the two licenses I linked) is.
I for one don't think that every principle they defend is worth protecting, nor I do fully agree with their definition. I'm not trying to convince you, just to say that some people have a different opinion.
However - by no means am I suggesting that non-commercial licenses or licenses which don't meet the other OSI or FSF criteria are wrong, or cannot be used to do good - nothing of the sort. But you need to give it another name. Some projects are using "Fair Source", for example.