Yes, and "gay" used to mean a different thing. Nowadays the only widespread definition of Open Source is the one defined by the OSI. Using it to mean something else is deceptive.
I disagree. Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? The OSI did not invent the term "open source". The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license.
Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source?
It's not because the OSI prefers, it's because it's the mainstream, generally accepted current definition of the word. I mean, if I sold you a "broascasting system", would you accept something that casts seeds out?
The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license
It doesn't. It implies a set of conditions they have to meet. BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache, WTFPL, are all different Open Source licenses.
Actually, Eric S Raymond, one of the founders of OSI, was also one of the people credited with coining the term "open source" at a meeting discussing Netscape releasing source code.
You may consider it deceptive, but it was and remains a common business practice for at least one very large software company. I just thought I'd point that it is possible to publish your code open source (not Open Source) and write your own licence conditions, and it happens every day, not just in the past.
