[icebraining]

The only objective definition of Open Source I know of is OSI's. Everything else is a hodge-podge of whatever the user of the word feels it's open. Is it reading the code? Modifying it? Redistributing it? There's no consensus besides OSI.

[MrStonedOne]

But their definition does not restrict it to OSI approved licenses, so their assertion its not open source because it hasn't been approved is not valid.