> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.
It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.
Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.
No, it's not:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
And even if it was, popular terms reach beyond the persons/organizations that coined them.
Unless it's trademarked, it's just a term all kinds of people use, many of which don't know/care about OSI.
In fact:
https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD.
>> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Your own reference contains this text, btw.
I think that basically puts to rest the question of who "owns" Open Source.
OSI has "OSI Certified" as a registered trademark (a certification mark).
No it's not. It's some random group of people that usurped the term and tried to take control of the marketing of a larger movement that was already underway and would have happened with or without them.