@roboneko >obviously a sensible answer might be something like "go read the OSI home page"
Although the 10 requirements in the "OSD" aren't that bad (albeit looser than the much shorter 4 freedoms), I am fully confident that a typical reader of that page will soon forget the requirements, considering that I've read such many times and I can't remember more than 3.

>disingenuously trying to grind an ideological axe
GNU/Axe requires regular grinding to keep the edge honed to Planck length sharpness; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

>who has actually spent any amount of time in the domain, knows in some general sense what "open source" means
Yes, those who use free software generally tend to naturally gain an understanding of what freedom in software is, but such understanding is ruined if the wishy-washy "open source" ideals are adopted, as such really boils down to;"We'll use open source software if it's convenient and we'll say things like open source everything, but actually, we'll gleefully continue to run lots of proprietary software as long as we think it's convenient to do so" (I noticed this pattern in every "open source" supporter I've met so far).

>it is a commonly understood shared concept.
Source-available is a commonly understood shared concept, but nothing more.

>the genuinely clueless don't know what "libre" or "FOSS" or any of the other terms mean either
Yes, that's why it's important to use non-confusing terminology that can be explained within 2 sentences, so even the genuinely clueless can be enlightened without a hitch.

Explaining libre only needs once sentence even - "Libre means liberty in software".

>what's wrong with FOSS as a term?
"FOSS" is believed to mean gratis, source-available software by most people.

Actually explaining what it means and having any listener understand fully what it actually means is a disaster; "FOSS means that the software is free as in freedom and also meets the open source definition by the open source initiative with 10 requirements, with number 1 being ...".


It's very disappointing that people are afraid of btfo'ing hundreds of years of marketing cons by explaining that free means freedom and instead support wishy-washy movements, merely because that doesn't require not agreeing to the lies of criminal companies that commit countless crimes against humanity.