Gregory's Server" The concept was explored and discussed publicly (under the moniker “Free Software”) for decades before it was officially “defined”. The OSI announced itself as the “marketing department for Free Software” "
Much as it saddens me, I think the first step in this road was that initial announcement calling itself the marketing department for Free Software.
I always considered the OSI as custodians of the OSI definition. How naive of me.
@downey @conservancy So we should not really be surprised that @osi are pushing this non open definition.
I refuse the argument that means the existing applications/platforms couldn't be certified as open.
If any part of them aren't available for us to study, share, modify, redistribute or the other parts of the definition, it should not be considered open. This is where we should draw the line. I'm honestly disappointed in the OSI. They are eroding the definition.
https://opensource.org/osd