You don't own the term open source mate.
On a more practical level: who do you consider be the authority? If the answer is 'nobody' (except yourself) then that makes the term essentially meaningless because there is no standardization, which means that one should stop using that term.
That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.
1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.
I know, you COMPLETELY misunderstood my comment.
> Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source"
I don't think he meant open-source and I am not saying he did, as free software defines greater freedoms. I am not a big fan of open-source myself, much prefer free software.
What I am actually trying to say, is that "free-software" was the original way to share code and work on it collaboratively for the commons, ie the thing open-source got inspired by.
What I am saying, is that in certain sense, you could say that Ken Thompson has a grandfatherly hand in Linux, despite him technically not. It's a spiritual hand, if you will.
This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has to release their source. Competition goes out the window.
So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.
That's a tragedy of the commons, not something any company is entitled to (BSD-style licenses excepted). Enjoying the benefits of an ecosystem while not contributing to it is not a thing to laud.
> So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.
...and here we are, with a MongoDB pulling a bait-and-switch on licensing because they want to have their cake and eat it. You shouldn't expect to only get the kudos (and higher adoption rate) that result from your open-source license and not run the risk of someone (possibly a competitor) forking your code. That is the price of admission into the open-source world.
It might not work with certain business models, but that's alright, others would fill their place.
Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.
This definition seems suitable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
Fortunately, most modern dictionaries recognize that languages evolve, using a descriptive approach, updating definitions when needed to reflect how words are actually used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#Prescriptive_vs._de...
That's just euphemism for "MongoDB is not (certified) Open source". It either is, or isn't; and presently it isn't, for reasons that were entirely under MongoDB's control.
Well, that presupposes that the OSD is the One True Definition of the term "Open Source"; although the OSD is widely accepted and respected, that's a rather bold claim over an English phrase.
> it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore
That claim doesn't seem justified at this point. It would be more accurate to say that it is not currently CERTIFIED BY THE OSI as being Open Source -- because the OSI has not yet reviewed the new license. Maybe it will turn out that it is Open Source (as per the OSD), maybe not. Until the license is properly reviewed, we simply don't know.
THAT is the definition of the term "Open Source" for all intents and purposes. Anyone else's is just a subjective opinion.
However, what really matters here is whether, if they choose to do that, developers would still be willing to freely contribute to Mongo's code base, and whether companies who use open source software will continue to use their product. Because _that's_ the reason Mongo cares about being "open source". If most developers and organizations recognize the OSI, with their license approval process, as the arbiters of what constitutes an open source license, then that's the reason the OSI's opinion here really counts. Not because they have some divine right to that term, but simply because if they say "after review, we don't consider this project to be open source by our definition of open source", developers and organizations may hesitate to contribute to, or use, this project.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
See https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any kind of an expert.
No, OSI doesn't own the definition and doesn't get to define open source. Some people agree with that definition, some don't. Nobody has to though. You can't really own what other people think, you can only try to agree on some definition during interaction. No need to pretend there is some universal truth that they just don't know about. It's an agreement, not truth.
And OSI might become irrelevant anyway if it doesn't change in light of recently emerged licenses with more restrictions and doesn't certify them in some way. People will just stick to a handful of popular known licenses and call them open source.
So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions.
You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd
Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.
I agree, in the legal context of business decisions, OSI has a very specific claim to the term 'open source' and declaring that mongoDB "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" is a warning directed towards people making business judgements around legal risk.
To everyone else, we use the term 'open source' because we heard someone else say it, and when we write software we say 'oh it will be open source' without getting into the nitty gritty of what license it will use and whether that's OSI approved.
But it doesn't. In the legal context of business decisions conformance to an OSI definition of "Open Source" means exactly nothing and OSI-certified "Open Source" even less than nothing. It doesn't help you with anything and doesn't protect you from anything.