[CivBase]

IMO this is a losing battle. Regardless of good intentions, the term "open source" is simply not descriptive enough to carry connotations about licensing. To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public). IMO the OSI would be better off coming up with a more clear term and popularizing that rather than trying to convince everyone that their restrictive definition of "open source" is the one true definition.

Don't get me wrong. I think OSI's approach to open source is admirable. I think there should be a useful term to describe what they currently call "open source" and I think projects which use those licenses should be celebrated. I just don't think they're going to win the battle for the term "open source" in the long term.

[mcherm]

> To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public).

I disagree. To the layman I think "open source" means "I can use it for free". Which in this case may not be true depending on your employer and whether this is a good revenue year or not.

I think OSI's definition is well thought out, widely understood, and regularly referenced. We should continue using it.

[CivBase]

> I think OSI's definition is well thought out, widely understood, and regularly referenced

I agree it is well thought out, but I strongly disagree that it is widely understood and regularly referenced. By the kind of folks who frequent HN maybe, but not by the industry at large - and definitely not by most people outside the industry.