Are you unable to get out of the hole of vocabulary appropriation and lobbying created by some activist groups?
You are perpetrating the mind washing game of zealots that try to convince you they have the right to define what is and is not acceptable to their self defined standards.
You keep quoting articles and pages defining what _a specific group_ with a specific agenda has chosen to appropriate as "Open source".
All your sources and Wikipedia pages are ultimately linked to GNU publications. Read the references.
"an open source software license must also meet the GNU Free Software Definition"
That is plain ridiculous.
> it's also been a thing for 20+ years
No, it has never been "a thing". Especially not 20 years ago. Not even the sources you quote date back more than 5 years.
I don't know for you, but I was there 20+ years ago, developing and using open source softwares, and that distinction did not exist. If you had the source, it was open source, whatever the limitations of the license.
1999. That's when the first version of this document was published. The original 1999 press release is linked to Wikipedia. There were some conferences and debates that happened before that, and some settling of the OSI in the early 2000s. 20+ years ago.
> I don't know for you, but I was there 20+ years ago, developing and using open source softwares, and that distinction did not exist.
That's really pretty strange ... it was a pretty hot topic back then ... are you sure you used open source software? like linux, freebsd, apache httpd, gcc, bash, samba, mozilla...
The right to use software commercially even if the copyright holder doesn't like you is an important qualification of open source. GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, MPL, Apache etc all include this right. It's important. It did take people some time and debate to figure it out ... 20+ years ago.
You are perpetrating the mind washing game of zealots that try to convince you they have the right to define what is and is not acceptable to their self defined standards.
You keep quoting articles and pages defining what _a specific group_ with a specific agenda has chosen to appropriate as "Open source".
All your sources and Wikipedia pages are ultimately linked to GNU publications. Read the references.
"an open source software license must also meet the GNU Free Software Definition"
That is plain ridiculous.
> it's also been a thing for 20+ years
No, it has never been "a thing". Especially not 20 years ago. Not even the sources you quote date back more than 5 years.
I don't know for you, but I was there 20+ years ago, developing and using open source softwares, and that distinction did not exist. If you had the source, it was open source, whatever the limitations of the license.
You are being indoctrinated.