[bigstrat2003]

> Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?

The word you're looking for is "correct". The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do. If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one, don't misuse an existing term to mean something it doesn't.

[orphea]

  > If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one

We even have such term already. It's source-available. Nothing necessarily wrong or bad about it. It only requires people to be honest with themselves and don't call code open if it's not.

[evanelias]

Part of the background for this entire dispute is that prior to the OSI's founding, "open source" was a generic phrase which was broadly understood to just mean "the source code is available". See many documented cases in https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...

So it's a bit ironic to argue that terms cannot be redefined, when that's already what happened with "open source" and what got us here in the first place. If OSI had chosen a novel term (e.g. "Sourceware" was one option they considered), they would have been able to trademark it and avoid this entire multi-decade-long argument.

[ekjhgkejhgk]

> The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do.

Absolutely does, that's exactly something that languages do.