[aviflombaum]

OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things.

No one gets to "own" what open source means.

But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you?

You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law.

In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?

[opensourcenews]

Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source.

I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.

[pessimizer]

> OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source."

Don't they, though? "Open Source" is not even a natural turn of phrase like "Free Software" is. Open Source is a strange phrase made up to describe a specific thing, and that thing is not that the source is available to be viewed.

edit: Also, thinking that the GPL is the only enforceable software license is just strange.

[kittiepryde]

I was watching a stream at one time (wish I had a link, but it was a Microsoft project), and they called that concept 'source open' (viewable but not not modifiable).

[cookiecaper]

I think the preferred term for software that doesn't comply with the OSI's definition is "source available".

[bryanrasmussen]

If they own it, in what way do they own it?

[cookiecaper]

"Open Source" is not a strange phrase. It's the natural phrase for software that doesn't keep its source secret (or "closed", a common synonym for secret). This is so natural that the intelligence community has a parallel definition of "open source" that refers to non-secret/publicly available intelligence sources.

I understand that in practice, ESR successfully muscled others out and claimed effective cultural ownership of the phrase, but that doesn't mean that no one else is allowed to try to stake their claim and see if it sticks.

I personally think the unlimited redistribution clauses that are mandatory for "Open Source" licenses have caused some serious problems. Commercial vendors have improperly conflated the distribution of source code with the complete inability to make any money from it.

The problem, of course, is not that the source is available and people are free to tweak and understand what's happening on their own machines, but that the licenses which open-source programs grew up under made serious commercial sales effectively impossible. The only business model that's viable is selling support. Compare the market caps of Oracle and Microsoft to Red Hat for an illustration of the comparative effectiveness of these models.

Stallman at least swapped commercial viability out for the infectious nature of copyleft, intended to keep as much software free and shareable as possible. Permissive BSD/MIT family licenses just give it up.