Words mean whatever's convenient to the bottom line, which is why the OSI (a consortium of Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc) still doesn't recognize the SSPL, as it would be particularly inconvenient for clouds.
The OSI is fully captured by companies with a vested interest in promoting that model and/or using open source to 'dump' on the market and commoditize their compliments. To recapture the spirit of open source as being about freedom for actual users (as opposed to free labor for jailed SaaS) and a mutualistic gift culture (as opposed to a take-take-take culture) probably requires abandoning the OSI.
That spirit was never there; "Open Source" was created to be corporate -friendly as it was predated by Free software, which is rigidly committed to users freedom.
> ”Open Source" was created to be corporate-friendly as it was predated by Free software, which is rigidly committed to users freedom.
Rigidly committed to a certain interpretation of users freedom. And that interpretation happens to involve removing a number of freedoms “for your own good”.
It is more correct to say that the GPL was created to be anti-corporate, as it was predated by both the MIT and BSD licenses, which are more free, both for users and corporations, which the FSF finds intolerable.
I ascribed no moral value judgement on which is better. However , Tim O'Reilly isn't exactly shy about who the target of those early Open Source conferences (OSCON) were, and what they were attempting to achieve - which they succeeded at.
ROM is generally hardware specific anyway so there is less benefit to it being free. Where else would you run it?
If open source maximizes freedom for those that want to take freedom away from the end user, you get open source as it exists today: a free labor pool and shared toolbox for surveillanceware and closed SaaS plays.