Open Source is a legal term in the sense that it becomes legal documents, licenses, and those licenses either conform to the OSI definition, or they do not. Su

Open Source is a legal term in the sense that it becomes legal documents, licenses, and those licenses either conform to the OSI definition, or they do not. Sure, you can write anything you like in your license, you can call it Open Source, but if it's not compatible with the OSI definition then it's not compatible with the ideals and values of Open Source. The problem with battling on value grounds, but abandoning the name, allows others to appropriate the name, and from that change the values. I find it egregious that companies get to water down the values - they get to slowly shift perception of what "Open Source" is - and along the way the values get lost. The values were written down. They got given a name. Now commercial interests want to appropriate the name, get the goodwill that comes with the name, but at the same time water down, remove, or alter, the underlying values. I am no FOSS accolyte. My day job is commercial software. The (non-existent) financial model of OSS doesn't work for me. I am -very- happy that licenses of all kinds exist. I am free to choose what programs I use, and what licenses I choose to accept. I am largely a consumer of open source, and a very minor contributor. It is as a -user- not a -developer- that I appreciate what Open Source (and Free) software mean, and I'm not ok with companies appropriating that term to mean "whatever they want".