The "dogmatic definition" of open source is what has been used for decades. Applying it to something that doesn't meet that definition invites confusion.
If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.
If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.