You seem to imply it is a negative, I don't think it is.
1. They certainly came from the free software movement, but they don't call it "free software", they call it "open source". It is a detail but the name acknowledge the distinction, "open source" is a more practical term while "free software" is more idealistic. And I think it is a good thing we have both a business friendly OSI for getting stuff done and a more militant FSF to keep businesses in check.
2. I never needed this convincing so I may be biased, but open source is I believe superior to proprietary. Think of the source code as documentation, the best kind because it tells the truth. Think of the ability to change and rebuild the software as unlimited extra settings you get for free.
3. Their definition of open source is as much canon as the definition of free software by the FSF is canon.
4. Most developers aren't lawyers, we can't really trust them to pick licenses, or worse, write licences that will do what they think will do. So having an approved list of well tested license is a good thing.
That big tech and big money is behind it is not a bad thing. Developers want to get paid after all. Big tech have the best lawyers too, so by picking a licence they acknowledge, you know what you are up to.
And note that some of the OSI approved licenses, like AGPL are particularly hated by big tech.
I'm going to vote you up, because at least your points make sense.
The key problem with your argument unfortunately is this part.
>> they don't call it "free software", they call it "open source"
The problem with this is that "Open Source" is already a phrase with meaning. Trying to co-opt that term for marketing reasons is disingenuous.
I happen to think that a source-available license is better than a closed source license. I ship my own code that way. However what I create is not Open Source, and I don't market it as such.
Liquibase is using a known term to market their product, when their license is not compatible with that term.
Their license is absolutely fine. Trying to pass ot off as OSS is not.
1. They certainly came from the free software movement, but they don't call it "free software", they call it "open source". It is a detail but the name acknowledge the distinction, "open source" is a more practical term while "free software" is more idealistic. And I think it is a good thing we have both a business friendly OSI for getting stuff done and a more militant FSF to keep businesses in check.
2. I never needed this convincing so I may be biased, but open source is I believe superior to proprietary. Think of the source code as documentation, the best kind because it tells the truth. Think of the ability to change and rebuild the software as unlimited extra settings you get for free.
3. Their definition of open source is as much canon as the definition of free software by the FSF is canon.
4. Most developers aren't lawyers, we can't really trust them to pick licenses, or worse, write licences that will do what they think will do. So having an approved list of well tested license is a good thing.
That big tech and big money is behind it is not a bad thing. Developers want to get paid after all. Big tech have the best lawyers too, so by picking a licence they acknowledge, you know what you are up to.
And note that some of the OSI approved licenses, like AGPL are particularly hated by big tech.