“ When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you

“ When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.” Agree with this assertion. The original definition was intended to be non-political and so specifically excluded any assertions related to the commercialization of software licensed as open source. In other words it didn’t make any assertions one way or another. The OSI later clarified that according to their open source definition (OSD)TM only licenses that did not limit commercialization by licensees would be considered open source. I assert that this decision was most likely influenced by OSI’s big tech closed-source financial doners, though you are free to disagree.