Good point. But in order to have a standard, you need a governing body to establish and enforce it. And who can you trust to do that any more? (We can thank ISO for a lot of that!)
To my mind, the real problem is that there has been a concerted effort on the part of a lot of closed source software publishers to create as much confusion and misunderstanding as possible about what was (up until a few years ago) generally understood by the terms "free" and "open." (Does a certain individual whose last name begins with a "B" ring a bell?)
I learned something many years ago when I worked for one of the Fortune 100 tech companies. When you're a well-heeled company, there is a three pronged approach to dealing with innovations or trends you are unable to control.1: Try to get the innovation outlawed.
Claim it is dangerous, immoral, or (in the USA at least) argue that it is communist/socialist in its goals and therefor threatens the economy, the family, the church, or jobs.
If that sounds far fetched, SCO made such an argument back in 2003.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws,"
Also, whenever possible, throw in a touch of xenophobia for good measure. (ex: "Did you know that Linus Torvalds is from Finland? Did you know Finland's right on the border with Russia?" - or my favorite: "I don't know if I want to trust my company's data on software that has so many foreigners
working on it. Those people all hate us and they'd do anything to hurt this country!")2: Spread confusion.
Attempt to render the name of the product, or its rallying cry meaningless. Release something that works the opposite way and call it the same thing. Redefine the terminology to be either narrower or broader than originally intended. Dismiss the innovation as "nothing new" or equate it with something that already exists. As a last resort, attempt to trademark or otherwise take ownership of the terminology and diffuse any momentum that it may have. Look how well that's worked recently with the term "green." Green has been rendered virtually meaningless now that it has been extensively co-opted by industries that are anything but.3: Resort to the BIG LIE.
Just keep repeating your position and ignore reality. Do it often enough and you can get a certain percentage of the population (usually the ones that just want the issue to go away) to side with you no matter how crazy your arguments are. If you can sponsor a bogus "independent study" to support your contentions, so much the better. Creating a captive "trade group" or "industry council" is also wise. Especially if the name masks the true nature of the organization. (ex: call a group that is set up to encourage the wider adoption of software patents something like: The Society of Professionals for Software Innovation.)
My former employer used many of the above tricks. And from what I am seeing, the above tricks are still successfully being employed today.
If you want people to stop being confused about software licensing - stop confusing them