> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. You are misinformed, at best. 1. FSF

> The FSF and the OSI don't own what 'open source' means, of course - the term predates them and comes from intelligence. You are misinformed, at best. 1. FSF predates the term "open source", that much is true. 2. OSI coined the term "open source." And FSF has has always had issues with that. 3. OSI, on their front page, above the fold, advertises their mission as stewarding the definition of "open source". Again, FSF isn't so keen on that. In any case, if you want to come up with your own definition of "open source" you are asking to be the third person in a three-way fight. Good luck with that. Anyway, I have not looked at MongoDB's license. If it is too restrictive for the taste of this or that distro, then I guess it has achieved MongoDB's objective.