The "OSD" is not the actual definition of open source. The OSI has no special rights to the term open source (despite their failed attempt to trademark the term). The OSI did not coin the term, their founders did not coin the term, the term was in use to refer to non-commercial software with publicly posted source prior to the OSIs existence.
Open source is like any english term, its meaning is defined by its use, not by some special interest group.
The complaint about using open source to refer to non-commercial licenses absolutely is pedantry. But more than that, it's not even objectively correct pedantry. It, like most language, is subjective.
(Which isn't to say that I think this license complies with the common use of the term open source as actually used, but I disagree with your argument for why that's the case).
All true, but language changes. And today, open source in this context is universally understood to mean software released under a license complying with the OSD.
Free software doesn't have to mean "software released under the GPL, MIT, BSD, or other FSF-approved license". And yet, in this context, it universally does.
Open source is like any english term, its meaning is defined by its use, not by some special interest group.
The complaint about using open source to refer to non-commercial licenses absolutely is pedantry. But more than that, it's not even objectively correct pedantry. It, like most language, is subjective.
(Which isn't to say that I think this license complies with the common use of the term open source as actually used, but I disagree with your argument for why that's the case).