> your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition This is fairly accurate, though there are a range of possible outcomes we would

> your end goal is to exclude commercial reuse from the open source definition This is fairly accurate, though there are a range of possible outcomes we would be satisfied with. > my theory about embrace/extend/extinguish seems to be as accurate as I thought. This is confused. Embrace/extend/extinguish means to initially participate in an open standard and then extend the standard in such a way that the non-extended version is sidelined. What is the standard in this case? The Open Source Definition? What is the extension? A limit on commercial reuse in the OSD itself? A widely endorsed time-based license scheme such as BSL? Let's say this came to pass (use your imagination :P ). What is extinguished thereby? The OSD still stands. The supposed extinguisher is _more_ committed to the standard, not less. Other companies that use even weirder licenses like SSPL and ELv2 and now HFOIL :rolling-eyes: are likely brought back within an easier to reason about system and we can all stop arguing about this a couple times a year. There is net _more_ open source software in the world, in both the strong (current) and weak (time-delayed) sense. That seems better to me than the current situation, and if in your view that is a change in the essence of open source, then yes, let's change open source. Change or die. [disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]