Gould: Oracle to Red Hat: It's Not Your Father's Linux Market Anymore

@ITAnalyst: "Why many of you can’t accept these rather ordinary and obvious statements of fact is probably a matter not for anthropology (pace ewan) but for theology. I’m an atheist myself, but also a libertarian, so I respect your right to believe in the purity and sanctity of non-proprietary open source, just as I respect the right of creationists to believe that God created the world in six days. But I wouldn’t want those people going near my kids’ biology class, just as I wouldn’t want you in charge of our economy (or any important piece thereof)."

While you have the freedom to speak something from yourself and defining them to present an idea that A is the same proprietary thing as B, you cannot treat it as the standard definition of the term.
Proprietary in reality is _proprietary_ like the Windows OS source code, you cannot change the meaning of proprietary in order to present "Windows Source code" as being the better proprietary from other (distorted meaning) proprietary. Here you intentionally alter the meaning in order that you can win the argument.
In the same way, the OSI can be the standard source of what proprietary and open source means in the _SOFTWARE WORLD_, not from your Atheistic approach of defining terms in accordance to your atheistic principles. There is no way for an atheist to set standards of theological terms to be taken as absolute truth by theology/bible students. Or you are a Richard Dawkins in the making.