I obviously think highly of my own licenses. But I also think "open source" should embrace CAL, SSPL, and 996, which I had no hand in. I think it's safe to say

I obviously think highly of my own licenses. But I also think "open source" should embrace CAL, SSPL, and 996, which I had no hand in. I think it's safe to say CAL wouldn't have gone anywhere with the OSI to which I proposed L0-R. But I no longer really care whether OSI approves terms or not. I don't care if it approves Blue Oak or not. I mentioned personal definitions of open source not to separate your views from OSD of DFSG or What Is Free Software? but to recognize that views of what those highly generalized, nontechnical, post hoc political documents mean in practice varies widely between individuals. There is no single, canonical, workable reading of OSD that follows necessarily from its text. The best candidates for that kind of reading exclude copyleft as we know it, which OSI saw in feedback from very early days. It's not a question of validity in any technical sense, but of mindshare. If by "anti-copyleft organization" you mean Blue Oak, see https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft https://blueoakcouncil.org/company-policy https://blueoakcouncil.org/company-policy https://blueoakcouncil.org/starter-policy https://blueoakcouncil.org/starter-policy Nobody here is your enemy. As far as I'm aware, nobody's conscious intentions are anything but pure.