> So open source means only licenses that are most favourable to the big tech monopolists now? Fully agree with your opinion here. In fact, I posted a lengthy

> So open source means only licenses that are most favourable to the big tech monopolists now? Fully agree with your opinion here. In fact, I posted a lengthy comment on reddit about this, here it is copy/pasted. NB: "You" below refers to the OP on reddit I was replying to. --- Yes, and that's why the phrase "open source" would be perfectly appropriate: open for inspection, review and modifications, but with possible restrictions on use and redistribution. Now from your description and quick glance at approved OSI licenses, the problem is that OSI seems to like and approve "free source" licenses, "free" basically being the freedom to do what the heck you want with it. (Except for GPL and its variants as /u/nemec noted. Not to mention that Affero GPL is OSI-approved and comes with restrictions/obligations not unlike the new Elastic license.). [EDIT: this paragraph was meant to illustrate the ambiguity of "open" in the OSI's license collection.] If somebody is the "enemy" of developers here (in terms of they getting fairly compensated), it's OSI: they've made a marketing stunt (which you seem to have bought -- and I don't mean anything bad by this -- you're not alone) by adopting the phrase "open source" instead of "free source", or even more explicit phrase "free-rider source". So now you have a bunch of developers striving for the OSI "seal of approval" and donating their work for free to huge companies. It almost seems like a plan devised by those big companies. Oh wait, look at the sponsors: https://opensource.org/sponsors https://opensource.org/sponsors No, I do not believe that OSI is the result of a conspiracy of big companies. But those big companies have been smart and coopted OSI for their benefit and now contribute to OSI to keep the marketing stunt rolling on.