> If you pick a non-OSI licence, that has social costs (as you said, less interest from other developers for example) Yes. People make a decision to choose fro

> If you pick a non-OSI licence, that has social costs (as you said, less interest from other developers for example) Yes. People make a decision to choose from the FOSS licenses because being seen as FOSS is valuable to them. That comes with tradeoffs, and it's unethical to expect to receive the benefits but not the drawbacks of your chosen license. > P.S.: The OSI are not even sellouts - they mostly consist of exactly those corporations themselves. I know. I find the bellyaching about the "spirit of Open Source" to be pretty ironic given that Open Source exists to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape" [0]. > those companies exploiting the FOSS landscape Exploiting how? What harm does $MEGACORP using a FOSS project do to the FOSS project? Does it hurt that it gives them more credibility? For there to be exploitation there has to be a quantifiable harm to the exploited victim—it has to be win-lose, not win-neutral or win-win. So where's the loss to the FOSS maintainers as victims? [0] http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource.org/history/ http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource...