One in which OSI obviously is paid by cloud vendors to denounce alternative licenses, lobbies for developers to be treated like kattle open for abuse, yet portrays themselves as representing developers, and bogusly claims ownership of the term "Open Source", contributing to monopolization and the weaponization of developer's work for surveillance a la Android.
The OSI has a clear definition for what they deem "Open Source" that hasn't changed since it was written down '98, based on the Debian project's Free Software guidelines. This was all long before cloud vendors could have payed them for anything. And they have, as far as I know, a very non-bogus claim on the term as they coined it to distinguish their (less strict) definition from FSF's "Free Software" term.
One in which OSI obviously is paid by cloud vendors to denounce alternative licenses, lobbies for developers to be treated like kattle open for abuse, yet portrays themselves as representing developers, and bogusly claims ownership of the term "Open Source", contributing to monopolization and the weaponization of developer's work for surveillance a la Android.