[toyg]

Yes, because OSS was meant to be a superset of projects including Free Software, so that stuff that did not fit the Free Software definition could still be considered ideologically acceptable. Do I really have to draw a diagram...?

[ptx]

Such as what stuff? Draw a diagram if you prefer, but a few examples of these nefarious non-free licenses promoted by the OSI would be sufficient.

[toyg]

Crap like Sun's CDDL and MPL were endorsed by OSI although they were developed explicitly in opposition to the GPL. Yeah, they might be nominally "free", but their aim was fairly nefarious at the time. OSI endorses all sorts of licenses that are free in name only.

[ptx]

OK, so you're saying that Open Source is "not the same thing" as Free Software and there was a "need to create a new definition for it" to include "stuff that did not fit the Free Software definition". You give the CDDL and the MPL as examples of such stuff.

But if you take a look at the Free Software Foundation's list [0] of Free Software licenses, you will see that it lists both the CDDL and the MPL as Free Software according to the Free Software Definition.

So why should a new definition have been needed to allow these licenses when they are already allowed by the old definition? Maybe you could supply some of that context you were talking about?

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

[toyg]

CDDL and MPL were defined as "free" only after a lengthy debate, and remain incompatible with the GPL - which, at the time, was widely considered the gold standard of free licenses. Without OSI as an ideological cover, they would have been ostracized even harder than they were.

> So why should a new definition have been needed to allow these licenses when they are already allowed by the old definition?

Maybe you should ask the founders of OSI? If their work was fundamentally pointless, why did they do it? Because it wasn't pointless, it was seen as necessary to be able to say "we are Good Guys, but not like them dirty GPL hippies".