> Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which

> Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find it interesting that the only time anyone talks about "mostly" or "nearly" open source is in the context of a company looking to get the marketing benefit of association, and maybe some people to do some free contributions for them, without being bound by the social contract at the heart of the FOSS values. But maybe that's just me. > To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable. So this is my bad, I should have been clearer. When I said "'but-for-one' is not open by definition,", I meant in the context of FOSS, and specifically the definitions the OSI maintains. "But-for-one" violates criteria #5 & #6. And yes, the word "open" has existed for a long time, but that's sort of why the OSI standardized the term. This has been a solved problem for decades, and efforts to dilute what it means are only ever looked upon with extreme skepticism. If people think the OSI definition is bad or incomplete, then that's an argument worth having out in the open. But that's not what I see.