> according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation
Really, now? Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?
>> Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?
Christine Peterson published an account that states that 'open source' was based on helping people to better understand 'free software':
'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.'
That does not sound like they wanted to change the definition of “free software”, only rename it. And “free software”, as (originally, and still) defined by the FSF, has always required permitting commercial use.
Really, now? Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?