[samj]

The OSI apparently doesn't have the mandate from its members to even work on this, let alone approve it.

The community is starting to regroup at https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org because the OSI's own forums are now heavily censored.

I encourage you to join the discussion about the future of Open Source, the first option being to keep everything as is.

[justinclift]

For reference, this is the OSI Forum mentioned: https://discuss.opensource.org

Didn't personally know they even had one. ;)

[scrollaway]

Heh... HN has always been full of massive proponents of the OSI, with people staunchly claiming any software under a license that isn't OSI-approved isn't 'real open source'.

Now we're seeing that maybe putting all that trust and responsibility in one entity wasn't such a great idea.

[opan]

We still have the FSF and free software, both predating "open source" and the OSI.

[seba_dos1]

OSD is widely accepted in the community and I don't expect that to change regardless of what happens with AI definitions.

Plus we still have FSF's definition and DFSG.

[jart]

OSI must defend the open source trademark. Otherwise the community loses everything.

The legal system in the US doesn't provide them any other options but to act.

[tzs]

They don’t have a US trademark on “open source”. Their trademarks are on “open source initiative” and “open source initiative approved license”.

[andrewmcwatters]

Hahaha… very open. Yeah, no one saw this coming.