There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage contributions for it. If they don't want to spend t

There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage contributions for it. If they don't want to spend the time & effort to manage it, feel free to fork their OSS Software and maintain modifications yourself - that's what OSS Software enables you to do. > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A more precise modern term would be FOSS You're understanding of what Open Source Software is invalid, call what you want your OSS to be something else like "Collaborative Open Source" because your definition of what you think it is, is not in any OSI definition or certified license. "Open Source" does have a clear definition [1], OSI certified licenses which meets its definition is available at [2] [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/category https://opensource.org/licenses/category