It doesn't meet one definition that one advocacy group choose to use. Other "open source" companies are somewhat more realistic and honest about the term and i

It doesn't meet one definition that one advocacy group choose to use. Other "open source" companies are somewhat more realistic and honest about the term and it's history: https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-source https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/open-source/what-is-open-so... I'm not saying the OSI's objectives and motivations are bad, but they did not invent the term "open source", they were not the first to use it, and their ongoing attempts to gatekeep it's usage are - at least to me - tiresome. (Having said that, I also find rms's hardcore free software stance tiresome, but I'm glad he chooses to dig his heels in so hard there, as an opposite-end-of-the-bellcurve outlier to counterbalance the vested commercial interests trying to extend and embrace the free software movement for commercial greed...)