Read the whole thing. I have quoted it extensively below:
It is important to note that this is not the definition for ‘open source’. There is no central authority for the term, so there is no official definition. No one can claim to own the term ‘open source’, just like no one can lay a claim to words like ‘swimming pool’ and ‘computer’.
if we stop innovating on open source licenses now we’ll be doing ourselves a great disservice. OSI and FSF are both winners. Both can point to multi-billion dollar industries built around the principles and foundations they have set forth.
Making the rich even richer was definitely not part of the original ethos of the open source movement.
We will know our movement is succeeding if we are contributing to privileged wealth being more widely and equitably distributed. We will know we have failed if the status quo remains unchanged, and the powers that be remain comfortably seated.
We need to get our hands dirty and re-imagine our open licenses for a world where technology does not exist in a vacuum.
Technology is not neutral. Nor is open source. The very act of releasing a collection of source code into The Commons under a particular license is undoubtedly political.
The radicals say “we need as many well-written open licenses as we can possibly get our hands on!” .
Count me in on Team Radical.
Erlend’s (personal) definition of open source:
Being open source means that the code is available for view and editing, and may be copied, repurposed and shared with others under certain conditions.
There’s a bunch of stuff about openness and vulnerability, of person’s and companies. I think this next bit is a process, not an end state we find ourselves in. And, openness == competitive advantage? Not sure:
modern companies are finding ways to incorporate their openness into their holistic business model. They’ve devised ways to turn openness into a competitive advantage.