open source != OSI approved license
OSI tried to trademark "open source" and failed. The term has no official meaning. IMHO, calling source available licenses open source is unusual but not wrong.
the OSI putting themselves on the same level as SI units is also a bit of a stretch imo. It's based on an international treaty signed by pretty much the whole world (except most of Africa). https://blog.opensource.org/osd_affirmation/
mainly I think it is not really needed to make a clear cut distinction between open and not open licenses. There is a spectrum of licenses with various different rights and obligations. As long licenses have a unique name, all is fine.
@eloy I do not have an opinion on that specific article, but I disagree that there is no need for a distinction; there is a very problematic pattern of companies trying to bank off the positive associations and expectations that people have from "open-source", and then restricting the licensing such that none of those associations and expectations are actually there.
It is a conduit of cooptation and community labour exploitation, and should absolutely be called out as such - and if "it's not open-source" is the most succinct and effective way to communicate that to folks, given a general societal lack of labour dynamics awareness, then it'll have to do.
@joepie91 There is also the Hippocratic License 3.0, which is non-open source/non-free according to the OSI and FSF, but is not really about corporation trying to misuse it, it makes that even harder. I personally do not like those kind of licenses (because it also makes stuff harder for independent devs), but does it matter that those are not open source according to these orgs? I don't think so.
@joepie91 and I still find it very weird that the CC0 is GPL compatible according to the FSF, but not OSI approved.
@eloy Note that "OSI approved" and "meets the Open-Source Definition" are two separate things; and quite a few that meet the OSD are not OSI-approved for one reason or another, and sometimes for very strange and invalid reasons.
Like how for example the WTFPL is not "OSI-approved", because the OSI misunderstood the purpose of the license and deemed it "unnecessary", rather than for any actual violation of the OSD.
