| So in your view, what is the opposite of "closed source"? Is your definition the one that 99% of English speaking humans would agree with? Why should the opposite of "closed closed source" be one groups ideological checklist, that's really an offshoot of "free software", a radical, anti-property ideology that is generally not accepted - and thus the GPL licenses are generally unpopular. Why does the OSI bother to maintain a trademark on "OSI Approved License"? Isn't that hypocritical? If not, why not? In my view, the OSI does have value, and "OSI Approved Licenses" are useful to know about, just like "FSF Approved Licenses" are good to know about... But they should not pretend to own language and have trademark on "Open Source" when the USPTO denied them a trademark: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... Also, there is extensive documented "prior to 1998" use of the term "open-source" meaning exactly "the opposite of closed-source", rather than someones ideological checklist: https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage |