[hnarn]

> The OSI and co. re-defining the term

I don't know where you got this idea but it's not true. The OSI is simply defending the definition as it has been generally understood since the start of its usage in the 1980s by Stallman and others.

The only group of people "re-defining" -- quite successfully I suppose, which you are an example of -- what open source software means are those that have a profit motive to use the term to gain traction during the initial phase where a proprietary model would not have benefited them.

I don't think I need to provide concrete examples of companies that begin with an open source licensing model, only to rug-pull their users as soon as they feel it might benefit them financially, these re-licensing discussions show up on HN quite often.

[pjmlp]

In the 1980s we had Shareware, Beerware, Postware, whateverWare, Public Domain, "send me a coffee", "I don't care" open source, magazine and book listings under their own copyright licenses (free for typing, not distribution).

Most of us on 8 and 16 bit home computers didn't even knew "Stallman and others" were.

Additionally, GCC only took off after Sun became the first UNIX vendor to split UNIX into two SKUs, making the whole development tools its own product. Others quickly followed suit.

Also, in regards to Ada adoption hurdles, when they made an Ada compiler, it was its own SKU, not included on the UNIX SDK base package.

[hnarn]

I don't really understand what your point is, but shareware has never been "open source".

Nobody's arguing that public domain code, or the MIT, or whatever is not open source; it's obviously open source because it's _more_ free than the GPL.

Sure, devs can call any "source available" project "open source" because it gets people interested even though you have zero interest in using an open source development model or allowing others to make changes to the code. Devs can also expect well deserved flak from people who understand that "open source" is not marketing speak.