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.
Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.
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.
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.