> I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The Open Source Definition is not "outda

> I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The Open Source Definition is not "outdated" just because you claim it is. It is still serving its purpose of protecting user freedoms, and it is doing a great job. When a project like MongoDB decides to use a license that is not open source, it is not the fault of the open source community that MongoDB Inc. made a decision for the project to become closed source. It is also not the fault of the open source community that Meta decided to make Llama 2 closed source while misusing the "open source" label to promote the project. MongoDB Inc. and Meta are solely responsible for their own business decisions. > But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. You're wrong. All users benefit when other developers and security researchers examine a software for vulnerabilities to be fixed, and software is more easily examined when the source code is published. All users benefit when contributed patches and pull requests are merged, and when a discontinued project is forked and maintained again. All users benefit when these improved apps are redistributed and made available for them. > They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. The purpose of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/) is to ensure the user's freedom to use, examine, modify, and redistribute software. There is nothing in the Open Source Definition that limits the privacy of its users. You have also not provided any example of how weakening the Open Source Definition would improve user privacy. > That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". The free software movement has been around since the 1980s and the open source software movement has been around since the 1990s. Your forum post that you linked shows your disdain for free and open source software, but doesn't provide a single good reason why FOSS developers and FOSS users should stop calling free and open source software "free and open source software". I have no idea why you are spending so much effort to tell the FOSS community, a community that you evidently dislike, to abandon its goal of preserving user freedoms. It's not going to happen. The "fair-code" project is doing a much better job of promoting source-available software that is commercially restricted, partly because they don't try to antagonize their audience like you are doing, and partly because they recognize that the terms free software and open source software already have accepted meanings: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io