And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source? As far as I am concerned, it is just one body with its own private viewpoint, not a universal lawmaker for all open source devs.

In general, while I appreciate the work of the OSI, I believe that they are too idealistic in their viewpoint, derived from the world of Linux and early OS.

In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

> And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source?

We give it to them.

OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.

I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.

Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.

> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.

Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.

Usage determines definition, not the OSI.

At the end of the day, Pure Open Source™ modulo one very narrowly defined prohibited use is good enough for everyone except product managers at large public cloud companies and people who want to argue about ideological purity. It provides all of the same benefits.