> Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. 1. They aren't written by or copyright or anything to the OSI. They ar

> Which is why you should call them "OSI Licenses" if you are referring to OSI licenses. 1. They aren't written by or copyright or anything to the OSI. They aren't "OSI Licenses" they are "OSI-approved licenses" 2. The Open Source Definition as clearly defined by OSI (and accepted as the only consensus definition in the world) does not include OSI-approved as a factor. So, a license can be Open Source without the OSI having done the active approval to validate that they see it as Open Source.