> My definition of "open source" is that the source code is publicly available. That's it.
If I defined "open source" to mean that changes the source code must be released publicly, it's going to be pretty hard for me to talk to all the other people who already use "open source" to mean something else. There is already a standard term for the source code being publicly available: "source available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. You're also welcome to invent and attempt to popularize any alternative term you want, but using idiosyncratic definitions makes discussion less clear.
> Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.
The OSI didn't just claim "opensource.org" -- the folks behind it coined (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...), introduced, and popularized the term "open source" over two decades ago. From the beginning they have used the same definition, which was derived from the Debian project's Free Software Guidelines.
They are not also not the only ones who use the term that way. Wikipedia has "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
If I defined "open source" to mean that changes the source code must be released publicly, it's going to be pretty hard for me to talk to all the other people who already use "open source" to mean something else. There is already a standard term for the source code being publicly available: "source available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. You're also welcome to invent and attempt to popularize any alternative term you want, but using idiosyncratic definitions makes discussion less clear.
> Just because that organization got their hands on a premium domain name doesn't mean they get to decide what that term means.
The OSI didn't just claim "opensource.org" -- the folks behind it coined (https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...), introduced, and popularized the term "open source" over two decades ago. From the beginning they have used the same definition, which was derived from the Debian project's Free Software Guidelines.
They are not also not the only ones who use the term that way. Wikipedia has "Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source