As a member of the FOSS community, and someone who has written an absolute truckload of FOSS software, I stand by what I said.

Open Source was coined before OSI was formed. OSI, and the previous launch of GNU by Stallman, was to combat the new (at the time) practice of only releasing machine code and the commercial vehicles that came along with it.

The original spirit of sharing source code for projects in academia, before software required so much more effort, still exists in licenses like SSPLv1, etc, that are not adopted by OSI.

I, personally, think this is a bad decision.

I, personally, feel that an organization that wishes to make their products source-available, especially those that allow noncommercial modification, should be recognized for that, not punished or gate kept.

I, personally, would love to see OSI adopt an open attitude towards those types of organizations, and create another official tier in the lexicon with it's own set of standard licenses that fit under it.

I understand and accept that other's don't feel that way, but that does not make their opinion about what should count as "open" any better than my own, just more widely accepted at the time.