>Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. Clearly you didn't read

>Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. Clearly you didn't read the OSI blog post that this blog post is referencing >The court only confirmed what we already know – that “open source” is a term of art for software that has been licensed under a specific type of license, and whether a license is an OSI-approved license is a critically important factor in user adoption of the software. https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertising-to-claim-software-is-open-source-when-its-not https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertis...