[sarchertech]

They looked around and found the guidelines that most closely matched their goals. Specifically DFSG already included a clause about not restricting commercial use.

Also if you read the original DFSG the clause about field of endeavor has been interpreted by OSI differently from the intent.

It was about saying your license can’t prevent an end user of your software from using it for a specific purpose. It really says nothing about restrictions on how you can sell the software.

The problem is OSI is now the sole interpreter of the definition.

[microtherion]

> “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.

— https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[sarchertech]

Sure. That restriction came later.

[account42]

It's not a new restriction it's a clarification of something that already followed from the original definition.

[fragmede]

Why is that the problem? Trademarks are one of the three branches of intellectual property. The two words "open" and "source" look like generic terms, but "Open Source" has come to mean a relatively specific thing. So have Disney and Google and Coca-cola.