[rovr138]

> And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source?

We give it to them.

OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.

I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.

Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.

> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.

Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.