Gregory's Server@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.