[djur]

The reason to defend the definition of "open source" as it currently stands is to prohibit organizations from profiting from the accumulated goodwill of the open source community and movement without actually adhering to the ethical standards of that movement. We've seen in the past that companies will release source under an encumbered license and claim to be "open" as a result -- the FSF and OSI were founded in response to that type of maneuver.

As far as I can tell, it's been a success. The recent batch of nonfree licenses have all had to emphasize that they are not open source in the face of public backlash. Making euphemisms like "source available" unappetizing is exactly the point.

Furthermore, the OSI is just a group, as is the FSF. If the OSI and FSF folded tomorrow the definitions of "open source" and "free software" would not change. It's not necessary for the OSI to approve a license for the software to be open source, so "OSI Approved License" is not sufficient. "Licensed on terms compatible with the Open Source Definition" might be more accurate, but "open source" seems like an adequate shorthand.

[xyzzy_plugh]

> It's not necessary for the OSI to approve a license for the software to be open source

I agree with you, but this is a controversial opinion which is the root of my frustration. OSI tries really hard to own "open source" as a term and while I'm not against the OSD I am against the gate keeping I see.

[josephcsible]

Why is wanting Open Source to have a single, well-defined meaning a bad thing? If you let everyone who uses words make up their own meanings, isn't https://xkcd.com/1860/ where you end up?

[xyzzy_plugh]

Because it's gatekeeping. If the OSI rules my license doesn't meet the OSD am I going to be socially exiled for labeling my software as open source?

Like any person or institution, the OSI is fallible. It's like saying that only a certain organization can define what Red is, and now look what we have with Pantone.

[djur]

This seems like a hypothetical concern. Has anybody actually had a problem with a clearly OSD-compliant license not being approved? Has anybody been "socially exiled" for not using an OSI-approved license?

[josephcsible]

Should people who sell food get to make up their own definitions of "kosher", "halal", "vegan", etc., without being "socially exiled"? If not, what's the difference between that and this?

And this is nothing like what Adobe and Pantone did.

[xyzzy_plugh]

That's a pretty terrible analogy. Etymologically they bear no resemblance to "open source". A better analogy would be "low fat" or "sugar free".

The more appropriate analogy would be if the Sugar Free Initiative defined "sugar free" and then you correct me by saying "actually that beverage isn't sugar free, it's artificially sweetened".

The world would be a better, more accessible place if we instead focused on what things are or are not, like preferring "OSI Approved License" over "open source" rather than needlessly conflate complex meaning with otherwise simple terminology.

[josephcsible]

> A better analogy would be "low fat" or "sugar free".

Sure, let's go with "sugar free". Should I be allowed to decide that it only refers to cane sugar, and so sell food full of HFCS that's labeled as sugar free?