> Once he determined it was not an OSI approved license then that should be the end of it. It's not Open Source. period. Where in OSI's "Open Source Definition

> Once he determined it was not an OSI approved license then that should be the end of it. It's not Open Source. period. Where in OSI's "Open Source Definition" [1] does it say a license must be approved by OSI to be Open Source? If that was really part of the definition, they could have had a much shorter definition! Another thing I find funny is that CC0 isn't "OSI approved" either, because of something about patents. But strangely, the "Definition" never mentions patents. But CC0 is not approved, so apparently CC0 is not open source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd