I am using the definition you linked to: The OSI's definition. > If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source > Initiative the following section

I am using the definition you linked to: The OSI's definition. > If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source > Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an > open license because it requires all software linked to > it to be provided under the GPL too: This is not correct, and your own quote from the OSI site does not support your assertion. The GPL does not require that all portions of a derived work come from GPL'd code, and even if it did, that would not violate the OSI definition (which deals with combining works together for storage + transmission). I don't know why you think the GPL isn't an open-source license, when it's listed prominently on https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses as OSI-approved.