The fact that they coined and defined the term in relation to software in the first place, I'd say.

They had already lost control of the term by 1999 when they tried to trademark it:

https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning that "no trademark" == "no authority".

Taxonomists don't have a trademark on "Canis familiaris" but we tend to respect their opinion on what is or isn't a "Canis familiaris". If someone points to a dingo and tells me "that's a Canis familiaris", I say "it isn't, according to taxonomists" and they told me "who died and made taxonomists the sole authority" I would raise an eyebrow.

> who died and made OSI the sole authority?

I have often thought the same recently.

> That's why a term called FOSS exists.

And that is a key part of the problem: conflating FS (Free Software) with OS (Open Source) to give F(OS)S.

The thing is that Free software and Open Source _don't_ quite mean the same thing, but we treat them like they do. They are close but not identical.

Also see the recent kerfuffle about RHEL and CentOS.

Free software: do whatever you want with it, including sell it, but give your users the source code. The GPL is a FS license not an OS licence.

Not the world. Not open to all. The GPL 1/2/3 etc only says, clearly and distinctly, users. If you sell your free software, then it's only the customers that get the source, and that is 100% fine and OK.

OS is a different emphasis: it was designed to appeal to companies, businessmen and managers. You get the source, so we are giving you control, agency: you can't have it stolen from you.

But it was phrased in terms of sharing and openness.

That's what OS means, because the OSI says it is.

So BSL licenses say "you can have the source, and you can contribute back changes, but we still own it, and you can't use it in prod without paying or re-sell it."

That's a restriction of use. That's neither OS nor FS.

Whereas RH's use is 100% FS compliant but gets the OS folks annoyed.

But OS is not the same as FS. What RH is doing with RHEL is FS but not OS. It's not open to the world but the GPL never said it had to be.

I don't know what the best answer is here.

I wonder if it's time for a new term which leans on the English primary meaning of "free", as in at no cost, gratis.

"This software is free to get, free to use, and free to fork, but only so long as you do not charge for whatever purposes you employ it. If you obtain revenue from running it, supplying its output, modifying it, you sell products with it built in, or any other revenue-generating operation you must pay back X% of your revenues/profits/whatever to the creators. This also applies to downstream modified versions."

IANAL. A lawyer could do much better, I am completely sure. It might not be easy but I suspect that there is a way.

>> The thing is that Free software and Open Source _don't_ quite mean the same thing, but we treat them like they do. They are close but not identical.

I agree. They're mostly differ on the effect they have on the -rest- of your code.

>> Not the world. Not open to all. The GPL 1/2/3 etc only says, clearly and distinctly, users. If you sell your free software, then it's only the customers that get the source, and that is 100% fine and OK.

I read this into OSS licenses as well? ie Users not everyone.

> who died and made OSI the sole authority?

The people who "died" are all the dumb, short-sighted companies who use terms like "open source" when their software isn't.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if people would just stop being disingenuous. But no, that's not an option.

You can't trust a company saying they're "open source". That could mean next to nothing. So we look to the OSI and see what they have to say.