Agreed. There is no trademark on aileron or carburetor or context-free grammar. A couple of years ago I made this same point myself. [0]

> A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.

This taxonomy doesn't hold up.

Again, it's a term of art with a clear meaning accepted by its community. We've seen numerous instances of cynical and deceptive misuse of the term, which the community rightly calls out because it's not fair play, it's deliberate deception.

> This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists

It is not. Trademark law exists to protect brands, not to clarify terminology.

You seem to be contradicting your earlier point that terms of art do not require licenses.

> OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.

I haven't expressed any opinion on that topic, and I don't see a need to.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203209