> the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source"
[citation needed]
My counter claim, without citation, is that I actually believe (from experience) that the vast majority of 'open source' projects are in fact released under licenses that already comply with the 10 OSI criteria, and are therefore 'approved' OSI licenses. This is easily witnessed by looking at the licenses of the majority of open source projects — or perhaps even just the most popular ones.
That would seem to go against your claim regarding 'most developers'.
But it's not actually a debate about 'most developers', it's about the OSS projects out there, not individual devs, no?
[citation needed]
My counter claim, without citation, is that I actually believe (from experience) that the vast majority of 'open source' projects are in fact released under licenses that already comply with the 10 OSI criteria, and are therefore 'approved' OSI licenses. This is easily witnessed by looking at the licenses of the majority of open source projects — or perhaps even just the most popular ones.
That would seem to go against your claim regarding 'most developers'.
But it's not actually a debate about 'most developers', it's about the OSS projects out there, not individual devs, no?