I havn't yet replied to the root node, as it's long and demands a fairly long reply, at least from me. This one, however, I can give a fairly short response to.

Most of the licenses mentioned in this post are not only OSD-Open, but have even been certified by the Open Source Inititive as being OSD-Open. The two exceptions I see are TeX and BSD. I'm not sure if you're refering to the "old BSD" or "new BSD" licenses, and I'm not sure if the entry on their list of approved licenses refers to the old or new BSD license either. TeX is not listed, but since it's distributed by Debian in the main section, they consider it to be Free according to the Debian Free Software Guide, which is almost identical. (The OSD started as a copy of the DFSG, and has /mostly/ had minor wording changes since then -- with the exception of clause 10, "No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.")

Oh, also, /under the same terms as perl (itself)?/i is not a listed license, but since both the Artistic License and the GPL are listed, there is no doubt in my mind that "under the same terms as perl" qualifies as OSD-Open. (Note that it would only take one of the two being OSD-Open to make the statement as a whole OSD-Open.)

I won't respond to your musings about what it means to loose his support of the OSD, because I'll do that in response to the main post.