[sanderjd]

I think this is a pretty good microcosm of the whole debate in this one sentence where you say:

> It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, ...

> ... as the community defined it long ago, ...

Yep, definitely! Nobody disagrees that the OSI defined this long ago.

> ... and as it still makes sense for it to be defined.

Maybe! But that's where the debate is. Is that the most sensible definition? Perhaps, even probably, yes. But it's also a totally valid question to interrogate. And that's what people are doing.

[benatkin]

The debate would be for a new meaning of the term open source, which has already been established. People can create a new meaning but it doesn't change the original meaning of it, which I like to call the true meaning.

The license is far from being the only thing about open source. What makes open source what it is are its triumphs, such as the popularity of Linux and how many developers prefer open source tools and platforms. However, using a license like the Business Source License indicates a lack of belief in the vision of open source, and a need to exert control.

[mixologic]

> What makes open source what it is are its triumphs

If you define triumphs to include only 'popularity' and developer preferences, then sure, its triumphant.

> using a license like the Business Source License indicates a lack of belief in the vision of open source

The issue is that the vision of open source itself is lacking, because it doesn't recognize that it fails to provide a pathway to being compensated and rewarded, tangibly, for building, contributing, and maintaining open source software and the infrastructure that supports it.

[benatkin]

Popularity is absolutely part of the triumphs I had in mind. It is often a very good thing in open source. It meant Internet Explorer 6 being less popular, as well as Windows on servers.

As far as the pathway to being compensated and rewarded - I want the community to be compensated and rewarded, not just those that started the project. We've seen this play out with ElasticSearch and OpenSearch, as well as Hashicorp. Even Sentry has an alternative https://glitchtip.com/

[sanderjd]

> The debate would be for a new meaning of the term open source, which has already been established.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, that people are interrogating whether that (inarguably) already established (arguably) "true meaning" is a good one.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the frustration people feel at new debates popping up over definitions that they feel are already perfectly good. But it's not up to you or anyone else individually; the way people use language broadly evolves all the time. It's useful to advocate for why the existing definition you prefer is the right one, but less useful to primarily focus on "we already have a definition of this, that's the only thing it could ever possibly mean!".

[ZoomZoomZoom]

> popularity of Linux

You surely meant to say it's a triumph of Free Software? /s