This post is almost completely wrong.
You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.
You can indeed do what you like in the license (within the bounds of the law) but if it doesn't meet the OSI definition it is not Open Source.
I like the OSI. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. My 3D printer is OSI certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use my printer to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, so long as it helps me solve problems.
I like the FSF. I use a lot of stuff that they endorse. One of the operating systems I use is FSF certified (or whatever the proper terminology is). But I use this operating system to solve problems, and it being open or closed source doesn't really matter, as long as it helps me solve problems.
I like Microsoft. I use a lot of stuff that they make. One of the operating systems I use. . .you get the idea.
I recommend just using the definitions of things correctly then :) much easier that trying to persuade other people that the definition does not exist.
When cooking I use the kilogram as defined by the SI system - I don't use some other random mass that I call a kilogram.
Similarly with software legalities. I also just use the standard terminology so other people e.g. my company's legal department gets the correct inference of what I am talking about. If you use it to mean something else you will confuse them.
What is not fine is when the person using the technical language wrong starts explaining that their ignorance is better than other peoples' knowledge.
For me its not ignorance, I am aware of both definition, I just prefer one better than other.
This is like saying that personally you use the definition of kilogram to be 3.5 measures of flour using one of your cups. You would struggle when using other people's recipes and other people would struggle when using yours....
Software licensing is complex enough already. Why not keep it all simpler and use words as they are defined and understood by the lawyers who are the ones who actually have to deal with this side of things? Then us programmers can just write the software.
That's why they should not use such simple and common words to define complex software licensing.