I agree that there might be better possible licenses out there - you might notice that I described the set of possible open source licenses as being infinitely large! The point is that you should go with an existing license for the good of the community unless you run into a limitation for your particular usecase that isn't adequately addressed.
Note that this has happened before! It's how the MPL (non-viral) and AGPL (anti proprietary SaaS) came about for example.
The one thing they all have in common is that they protect the user's right to modify and redistribute the software they receive. Yes, that necessarily places some limits on things in order to disallow abridging such rights for downstream users.
Moreover, there is indeed a balance between the degree to which such rights are preserved versus the number of restrictions the license must impose in order to accomplish its purpose. This is why a range from copyleft to permissive exists, with the MPL squarely in the middle. The presence of such nuance doesn't make the definition fuzzy or unclear though - there is a consistent protection of user freedom throughout, with restrictions existing only to further this goal. (Compare this to source available licenses, which carry additional restrictions unrelated to preserving user freedom.)
> Grouping AGPL and MIT in the same bucket is borderline harmful -- they're wildly different! This is what I mean when I say the term "open source" is a fuzzy descriptor. You can't have a fuzzy descriptor and then complain about things which don't fit your worldview. That's what the OSI basically does in a nutshell with their "Open Source Definition".
Again, this is a factually incorrect statement. You are verifiably and demonstrably wrong here. The definition of open source is consistent, and all of those licenses fit it. Source available licenses, on the other hand, do not.
You mention a bunch of objections you (and others) have to AGPL, GPL, etc. That's fine, and those licenses may not be right for you, but that doesn't somehow make them "not open source". Trying to shoehorn in some other definition by claiming that having issues for you or someone else makes them "not open" isn't a valid line of argument. The meaning of the term is very well established at this point and you are misusing it.
I realize you have (apparently) an ideological axe to grind against viral licenses. I don't particularly like them either, but that doesn't magically change the definition of an established term.
> The term you're looking for is "I disagree".
No, I used precisely the term I was looking for when I said that you were incorrect. It is true that I disagree with all of your following statements as a result though! You might legitimately hold that the term "open source" has a different definition than the one I use, but (as you might have gathered from what I wrote) I'm not even remotely convinced. In fact I made it clear that I hold such views to be ignorant, and that I believe you have fundamentally misunderstood the entire point of the open source movement. I can see how such a view might come off as abrasive, but that doesn't change it.