In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a

In a funny way, I actually don't think ownership of the term, or even who gets to decide that, is what really matters. Mongo can release their software under a license they term "open source", or "special mongo license", or "license X" -- they're under no obligation to use any commonly-accepted licenses or terms. They are certainly free to call themselves "open source" under any new license, and make their arguments as to why they believe that term applies. 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.