I don't like any of these licenses, but if I was playing devil's advocate here, "open source" as a term on its own surely just implies the source code is publicly available? Which it is.
I believe that it's not a protected term or a trademark or anything, but rather it's the case of misleading marketing. Open source is widely understood to be a specific thing, which Liquibase explicitly isn't.
Although, on the other hand, "Two years after release, the license for each applicable version of Liquibase Community code reverts to Apache 2.0". So, it's like... eventually open source. Which is still misleading, as it doesn't apply to the current versions.
> Open source is widely understood to be a specific thing
I think everyone thinks the way they understand open source is the way everyone understands open source. And yet every time an open source project, by any definition, changes their license, people debate what open source really means.
Unlike a term born with a specific definition, like "FOSS", open source doesn't really have a definition. The OSI has a definition that seems to be most popular, but that's not the only understanding of the term that is doing the rounds.
For plenty of people, open source means "source-available software". For others, it's software licensed under a subset of specific licenses (which licenses is also a subject for debate). And for some it means "software developed in a specific way that involves the community", like many Linux adjacent projects are, disqualifying corporate projects licensed under those specific licenses because they can do a Liquibase any time they want and there's very little chance a community large enough to maintain and develop the existing code will stand up when they do.
Liquibase now falls under one of the three definitions I've heard people agree about rather than two.
I guess you're right, in the way that we can either describe and prescribe language, and yes, open source is not defined in exact terms. I still do think that attaching the label to a product, and disregarding the decades long collaborative nature of the development is utter nonsense. In my opinion, the onus is on these people to get closer to what open source really is, not because I don't want to update the term, but because I want the movement to succeed, and not to be watered down.
"Open source" was a widely used term in several industries before it was ever used for software. The original meaning was simply "publicly available". It was OSI that attempted to co-opt the term to mean something more specific.
IT is like that in every aspect of its naming, I think. It's a separate domain. We got architects, rockstars, viruses, windows, icons, etc and they resemble the original thing only to a degree.
Not just some people. It's more like if the Cheese Association of France came up with a definition, and that definition then gets accepted by cheese lovers and major dairy industry companies worldwide. The OSD holds significant weight in the industry.
The OSI are the people who made it up, and the only reason why anybody cares about it. If you call yourself Open Source and you don't comply with the OSI definition, you're a parasite trying to commit fraud with the good will generated by other people.
I also don't care if somebody in 1975 said "I like to be open, and I'll let anyone look at the source." Old McDonald had a farm before McDonald's was a restaurant, but that doesn't mean that if you open a restaurant called McDonald's that is decorated like a McDonald's, you're not a scammer. I know your plastic fruit is carbon-based, but if you label it as "organic" you're a thief.
If you're not trying to scam people, be creative and make up your own catchphrase for letting people look at your source code - or don't even, because the whole idea of having a branding for allowing people access (and rights to) the source is imitation of the FSF and OSI.
I'm ok with saying that Open Source is now widely understood to mean what the OSI says, that's just a function of how language evolves. But we don't need to re-write history to get there.
Open Source isn't a brand, it isn't a trademark, it was hijacked by OSI to enforce their specific interpretation of a phrase that was already in use. OSI wasn't founded until 1998, over a decade after the term open source software became popular and was used throughout the unix and linux communities and in businesses such as Caldera. Before OSI came up with the OSD many creators of open source software had non-compete clauses in the licence.
"Open Source software" was never a popular term before the OSI promoted it. "Open Source software" is a reworking of the original term "Free software" to be more palatable to businesses. The Open Source Definition is very similar to the older Free Software Definition and virtually all software qualifies as either both or neither.
Likewise I feel like it only became "the common understanding" due to pushing within the past decade. Before that "the common understanding" was what people are only now calling "source available" - which I don't think I'd heard of before just a couple years ago.
Many countries have false advertisement laws, so if you say something is open source, it does mean various things. So, if you sell the product for free, then of that free product the source has to be practically available.
No, "Open source" had been used as a term for many decades before the February 3rd, 1998 meeting where Christine Peterson suggested that it be borrowed to describe software. This is much of the reason why any attempts to trademark the phrase have been denied.
OSI was financed by Tim O’Reilly originally and now by big tech companies as a way to co-opt th free software movement and make it more business friendly.
They have successfully convinced a generation of developers that “Open Source” is pure and holy, but a licensee that includes a term that says something like no company making more than $100 million per year can use this software for free is unclean and maybe even evil.
They don’t want alternative licenses to exist because it hurts their bottom line.
I might disagree with meaning of "free software" in common parlance. But "open source" is pretty much agreed on. Source available is as valid and much more descriptive when well source is or can be provided to users.
