It is political in the sense that the acceptance of definitions is a matter of politics, not logic. If you call your software "MIT licensed" there can very well be ambiguity by virtue of muddying the situation and getting enough people to agree that your definition is correct such that uninvolved third parties have no idea who is right. This is the present situation with "open source", where the OSI has inserted itself as an arbiter of what is and is not open source, much as the FSF has inserted itself s an arbiter of what is and is not free software. Ultimately, whether you accept their definitions or pre-existing definitions does not boil down to logic, but whose politics you align with, and hence whose definition has greater utility for you such that you want to adopt and propagate it.