> "Definitions don't belong to committees" > "[...]irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own it[...]" The definition (and it's authority/legiti

> "Definitions don't belong to committees" > "[...]irony in the OSI talking about open source like they own it[...]" The definition (and it's authority/legitimacy) belongs to (i.e. owned by) a community of contributors, very much like an open source project, not a committee (i.e. the OSI Board of Directors). Currently there are 508 members in the OSI's "License Discuss", and 266 members in the "License Review" communities. These are open to anyone to join, and participate in. These groups define "open source" as expressed trough licensing. The Open Source Definition, as well as OSI Approved Open Source Licenses have been modified through the consensus of these communities (e.g. the addition of a 10th criterion to the OSD, and work around open source license proliferation). (Full disclosure, I am currently the General Manager at the OSI).