1. The OSI tried to get a trademark for “open source” in their early days and failed.[1] They don’t own the term, and arguing fine distinctions like this does nothing but promote flame wars.[2]
2. The developer put a lot of effort into this and was generous enough to make this available for free with the source code open. Please be gracious, because belligerent feedback like this is what causes people to sometimes reconsider making software free or open source.[3]
3. You also falsely claim Patrick Wardle is aware of the issue and refuses to change it, even though he hasn’t commented on the issue you cited, at least as I write this.
1. Whether or not the OSI has a trademark doesn't seem relevant to me, they coined a term which wasn't used before and associated it with a well known definition. The distinction seems more significant than fine to me and causes confusion about what kind of license I (and others, as evidenced by the open issue on the subject) expect the software to be under. That a subject is source of disagreement is certainly not a valid reason not to discuss it.
2. I'm very aware of the efforts of free or open source software authors and I'm grateful for them. In fact, I occasionally take time to thank them and make donations to them (although I should do it more). This doesn't mean that inaccurate statements should not be corrected and I don't see anything `belligerent` about reporting them, as would be the case for reporting a bug.
3. You're right on this, I wrongfully assumed one of the person answering in the issue was the author. I changed my comment.
People keep claiming that this is a somehow established definition of “open source” (or Open Source or OpEnSoUrCe), but when I look at the people around me it seems a vast (silent) majority actually uses the term that way. “Open source”, in my personal “tests”, means “the source is open.” You may balk at this, but notice the elegance of the definition corresponding to the meaning of the actual words. Free Software is more commonly understood as what people sometimes religiously defend as the meaning of “open source”.
Then someone comes along wagging his finger online saying no, no, no, that’s not what that word means. Just like with “could care less”. You know what? I think the battle is lost. Language doesn’t work that way, and I’m going to call it: Open Source means open source, i.e. source is open. And we would do ourselves a great favour switching to a different term, because we’re swimming upstream in this one.
While we’re on the subject of poor names: the worst mistake Stallman made was calling his movement Free Software. He would have turned a strong undercurrent of PR in his favour [e: by calling it Freedom Software] instead of having to constantly battle the semantics of “Free as in Freedom of Speech, not Free as in Free Beer.”
When people say naming things is one of the two hardest things in programming, I’m wondering if it’s just because programmers are really bad at it.
You can certainly change the meaning of well understood words in English by capitalizing them: polish != Polish, windows != Windows, etc. Furthermore, adding a hyphen to convert a noun phrase to an adjective seems to me to be a common and non-controversial practice in English.
(Yes, I believe I understand your position, but I think you're going to have to rephrase your objection.)
Not right. The problem with this definition is that it doesn't confer any extra rights. It doesn't mean very much if you can read the source code if you're not allowed to use it, study it, modify it or release modified copies. Microsoft does this, actually. They release the source code of the C runtime library, but it's All Rights Reserved, so you can't really do anything with it except use it for debugging. You have no extra rights to it than if they didn't release it and you reverse-engineered it from the CRT binaries instead. Even your right to study it is in question. You can't contribute to the Wine CRT if you've seen the official CRT source.[1]
So, for a program to be "open source," under the commonly understood definition, it must confer some rights. Most organizations that deal in free and open source software, like the OSI, FSF, and Debian, have agreed that this includes the right to use the program for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
Non-commercial use clauses for software are really troublesome, too. For example, if a small family-owned business uses the same computer for personal and business work, are they allowed to use LuLu at all? If another Objective C developer is reading LuLu's source code and they come across a utility or widget or something that they want to use in their own software, can they use it without the troublesome non-commercial use restriction coming with it? (Probably not.)
No, I'd say that your "open source" is either "shared source" or "source available" - depending on exact terms - using terms that we've been using for a couple of decades now.
edit: there is an open issue about it: https://github.com/objective-see/LuLu/issues/4