Hippocratic license is not for open source software

[pearu]

The license contradicts the requirements 5 and 6 (see https://opensource.org/osd) to be used for open-source software. Hence the term "open source" should be removed from the license text.

[sbleon]

@pearu is the phrase "open source" trademarked? If not, anyone is free to use them in whatever manner they choose.

[pearu]

@sbleon To me, "open source" is a concept. Concepts cannot be trademarked. But if people use a term with different meanings, then it just confusing.

[sbleon]

"Open source" already means a lot of different things to different people. OSI's definition is not canonical, and its criteria cannot be considered "requirements" for people to use that phrase.

[pearu]

Can you provide references to other definitions of "open source"?

[sbleon]

Sure.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/open-source.html https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/open-source

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:24 AM Pearu Peterson notifications@github.com wrote:

Can you provide references to other definitions of "open source"?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/hippocratic-license/issues/7?email_source=notifications&email_token=AABQQN472DOVTIMFX7ZUSITQLNYBRA5CNFSM4IZ7XEXKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD7SDAJQ#issuecomment-535048230, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABQQN46QHSN6LLUIRJECN3QLNYBRANCNFSM4IZ7XEXA .

[pearu]

So, one of the common factors of these definitions is that the open-source software is made freely available [merriam-webster, lexico]. Hippocratic license is non-free as it exposes restrictions to availability to certain subjects.

The definition of businessdictionary uses "free of charge" and restrictions for "resale" but even here the availability is the key factor.

Can you provide a reference to a definition of "open-source software" that does not contradict with Hippocratic license restrictions?

[yawpitch]

@pearu stepping back a bit, can you provide a colorable legal theory -- ideally with citations to case law -- that establishes that the Hippocratic License does not in fact comply with criteria 5 and 6 of the osd?

If loosely construed the MIT license already "discriminates" against both individuals / groups, and fields of endeavour: to whit any individual or group that does not want to retransmit copyright notices and license text, and -- generally -- to the field of endeavour that is copyright violation and software piracy ... clearly "discriminates" is a term with some wiggle room in it, if OSI hasn't already violated itself by officially approving the MIT license.

Moreover the OSD criterion mentioned say that software isn't "open-source" if it "discriminates", without qualification or incorporation of that term or any standard by which to judge if discrimination has occurred. The added clause basically recapitulates that prohibition against discrimination and strengthens it by incorporating a specific international standard through which to view the meaning of discrimination.

Absent an aggrieved party I don't think you've yet established contravention, even if the OSD had some sort of claim or lock on the term "open source", which it does not. Further there are OSI-approved licenses that restrict in some way the nature of the licensor, for instance the NPOSL-3.0, so I'm not certain that even the OSI feels that amending an existing license towards some greater social good is, in any way, a direct contravention to OSI approval of that license.

I don't think a PR for this issue is yet reasonable ... however asking this project to submit the Hippocratic License to the appropriate approval process would certainly be reasonable.

[yawpitch]

So, one of the common factors of these definitions is that the open-source software is made freely available [merriam-webster, lexico]. Hippocratic license is non-free as it exposes restrictions to availability to certain subjects.

What part of the Hippocratic License says that it is not available to bad actors? It is available to them, it's just not useable by them for the purpose of engaging in bad acts. If they cease the acts they won't be in breach of the license.

[pearu]

No, I don't have the requested legal theory. In my opinion, not everything needs to go through the court to make sense. Nor I am qualified to argue at that level. However, we need a ground where there is no disagreement. I thought OSD provided this ground but evidently not for anyone. Hence my question.

I think it is up to a maintainer of the license to submit it for OSI approval, or not.

[nealmcb]

Don't get confused: the NPOSL is not some pre-existing OSI-approved license that restricts use of software. The "non-profit" modifications to the OPL are all about the Licensor (the entity granting a license) being non-profit, not the Licensee (the ones using the licensed software). See Reduced Risk For Non-Profit Organizations. This is about licensors with no revenue stream at all who cannot afford to offer any warranties, even a simple Warranty of Provenance.

I think you can be very confident that the OSI would not approve this Hippocratic license. Despite the misleading arguments here, it clearly violates the OSD. OSI have disapproved of many other licenses that violate the OSD and have clearly communicated what the terms mean.

The open-source community has been united about the meaning of the term for decades. Note that Red Hat and Debian actually dropped MongoDB when they changed their license from an OSD-compliant license to one which no longer meets the OSD.

It is wrong, misleading and a big disservice to those choosing licenses to suggest that this is an open source license.

[ghost]

OSI's definition is not canonical, and its criteria cannot be considered "requirements" for people to use that phrase.

For what ‘open source’ is worth, OSI's definition is generally respected and recognised by many people and organisations, as shown by this recent affirmation.

[yawpitch]

Don't get confused: the NPOSL is not some pre-existing OSI-approved license that restricts use of software. The "non-profit" modifications to the OPL are all about the Licensor (the entity granting a license) being non-profit, not the Licensee (the ones using the licensed software). See Reduced Risk For Non-Profit Organizations. This is about licensors with no revenue stream at all who cannot afford to offer any warranties, even a simple Warranty of Provenance.

I think you can be very confident that the OSI would not approve this Hippocratic license. Despite the misleading arguments here, it clearly violates the OSD. OSI have disapproved of many other licenses that violate the OSD and have clearly communicated what the terms mean.

The open-source community has been united about the meaning of the term for decades. Note that Red Hat and Debian actually dropped MongoDB when they changed their license from an OSD-compliant license to one which no longer meets the OSD.

It is wrong, misleading and a big disservice to those choosing licenses to suggest that this is an open source license.

I did mention that the NPOSL addendum restricts the licensor; my point is only that the addition of restrictions and constraints on either party isn’t necessarily a bar to approval.

This is why a formal process exists and why the license should be submitted to that process sooner rather than later if the project wants to say it’s open source. Since the actual text of the license doesn’t appear to have completely solidified and it’s not widely used I don’t think they’re bound by the confidence level of a bunch of IANAL observers.

Alternatively of course they could propose a definition for Ethical Open Source, since ethical concerns over the use to which software is put doesn’t appear to have been factored into the OSD; which, given developments after it was put forth may very well be a gaping oversight.

[yawpitch]

In my opinion, not everything needs to go through the court to make sense.

I appreciate that sentiment, but you’re talking about software licensing and copyright... this is an area that exists solely to be sorted out, eventually, in courts and legislatures.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

All open source licences have some kind of restriction on how it can be used and distributed. Eg: Mit license (the most common OS license) has the sentence "subject to the following conditions:" In other words: you can use the code as you wish as long as you follow a specific set of conditions. Hippocratic license does the same: you are free to use the code as long as you do no harm with it. So Hippocratic license is for open source software, and I'm using it with my OS code.

[ghost]

@rafaelcastrocouto Of course every license contains conditions and restrictions. That's the whole point of a license. It grants rights and permissions and imposes restrictions.

This issue deals with the claim that the Hippocratic License is an Open Source license. For the average reasonable reader this claim directly translates into: "does satisfy the conditions of the Open Source Definition (OSD)". It is debateable if this is indeed the case.

I would agree that the Hippocratoc License does not satisfy the OSD conditions, especially

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

We should discuss if this is the case or not. Your comment and similar ones are just derailing the discussion.

[pearu]

@rafaelcastrocouto , the question is not about if a license defines certain conditions for its usage, the question is if these conditions contradict with the definition of "open source" or not. For instance, MIT license does not, while the Hippocratic license does have a contradiction. My argument applies only when one accepts the definition of "open source" as given by OSD. If one does not accept this, then nevermind...

[rafaelcastrocouto]

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

I don't see how it doesn't satisfy this condition. Unless you consider "endanger, harm, or otherwise threaten" a field of endeavor. The way I see it, you can use a code with the Hippocratic license to all fields as long as you take in consideration the imposed restrictions.

[yawpitch]

I would agree that the Hippocratoc License does not satisfy the OSD conditions, especially

1. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

We should discuss if this is the case or not. Your comment and similar ones are just derailing the discussion.

Does “actively and knowingly endanger[ing], harm[ing], or otherwise threaten[ing] the physical, mental, economic, or general well-being of individuals or groups in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights“ constitutes a specific and identifiable “field of endeavor”?

Moreover, if it does, should that field of endeavor not be discriminated against?

I’m not confident the former has been adequately or reasonably demonstrated, and I’m also not sure the latter can be answered by a software license, but I do see the value of a license which says “I don’t want me work used for evil”, while I fail to see the value of a license (or a designation of a family of licenses) that cannot make the same principled stance known.

[ghost]

Does ... constitutes a specific and identifiable “field of endeavor”?

That's the intersting question. Submitting the license to the OSI for approval should answer it.

Moreover, if it does, should that field of endeavor not be discriminated against?

That's not the subject of this issue and probably not answerable.

[yawpitch]

while the Hippocratic license does have a contradiction.

@pearu it had an apparent contradiction, to you... I see a possible, and given some of the equally apparent conflicts of interest of the OSI even likely contradiction, but that’s why I’d rather push the authors to submit it for formal review, after they’ve finalized the text.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

So you are saying " endanger[ing], harm[ing], or threaten[ing] " IS a “field of endeavor” in some way??? Well "I'm not confident" that it should be, and you should be confident that we must not accept this kind of behavior and that we should find ways to avoid them. As I said before, I see no contradiction at all and the idea that you cannot call Open Source some code because their authors don't want it to be used to harm others makes no sense, not even taking account everything in the opensource.org website.

[yawpitch]

Moreover, if it does, should that field of endeavor not be discriminated against? That's not the subject of this issue and probably not answerable.

I agree that it's not the subject of the issue, but I'm quite certain it's answerable.

[pearu]

I respect the aims of introducing Hippocratic license and see nothing wrong if people use it in restricting their software usage. On the other hand, there is a problem when people are misusing terms in order to get more attention to their cause no matter how noble this is.

[yawpitch]

@pearu I agree in principle, however I still don't think you've established that such a misuse has actually occurred. Given that there's a bit of a controversy on that point it's probably best to open a new issue suggesting that the license be submitted for a formal determination. There comes a time when it's best to involve some lawyers and subject matter experts, after all.

[ghost]

The OSI chimed in:

The intro to the Hippocratic Licence might lead some to believe the license is an Open Source Software licence, and software distributed under the Hippocratic Licence is Open Source Software.

As neither is true, we ask you to please modify the language to remove confusion.

I think this answers the question of this issue.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

"misusing terms in order to get more attention to their cause"

Please don't start throwing rocks for no reason. No one is trying to get more attention just by calling a public code OS. The reason to make the code public is to make it available to the public not to show off.

As stated in opensource.org

"Giving everyone freedom means giving evil people freedom, too."

There's no such thing as "evil people" only evil actions. Everyone has good and bad attitudes. The Hippocratic license makes no discrimination on who can use the software but on HOW it can be used or for WHAT PURPOSE it can be used.

"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Since "endanger[ing], harm[ing], or threaten[ing]" is NOT a field of endeavor and programs under this licence can be use for all kinds of business, I can and will keep using this license as an Open Source License. My code is available for everyone with no discrimination. Everyone can use it for whatever project, business or genetic research.

In my opinion this is far from closed and the organization should not have the final word on this subject.

[yawpitch]

I think this answers the question of this issue.

The OSI having spoken up it's now up to the author(s) to decide if they want to remove the terms "open source" to remove market confusion, as requested. The OSI does not own a trademark on the term "open source", and so all they can do is make that request.

Personally I think anyone actively applying pressure to the authors to do so, in light of the obvious and stated intent of the license -- and the apparent moral apathy of the OSI -- might want to consider if the ordering of their priorities are rather screwed up.

That said I would say to the authors that perhaps this is an appropriate time to create and promote an Ethical Open Source Definition as amendment / evolution of the original, which hasn't obviously kept up with developments in AI, and that the Hippocratic License be its first approved license. Pre-pending the term "ethical" to every use of "[Oo]pen[- ][Ss]ource]" within the Hippocratic License may then be sufficient to address the various concerns raised by those who have accepted the OSI's stance on ethics.

[ghost]

In my opinion this is far from closed and the organization should not have the final word on this subject.

This is not about having the final word. The OSD is well established by the OSI and everybody concerned with it has so far confirmed that the proposed license can not fall under the OSD.

Of course it is possible to not agree with the terms of the OSD. You can propose a competing Ethical Open Source Definition. But to avoid confusion, please don't call a license following this competing definiton Open Source.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

But to avoid confusion

Can you give me a practical example of how could someone be confused by reading the license?

[ghost]

... to avoid confusion by the misuse of the well established term Open Source which to the average reader implies compliance with the OSD. Since the proposed license does not comply with the OSD, the use of the term Open Source for it would be confusing.

The text of the proposed license can of course be whatever the authors like it to be. But it should not be called Open Source.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

So just putting an "Ethical" before it would be enough to avoid this "confusion"? Should it be called "Ethical Open Source"? That's what's being suggested as a solution, right? I don't oppose to this, just seems a bit stretched, that's all. What the average reader implies when reading open source ain't compliance with OSD. The average reader has never heard of the OSD. What most people think when reading open source is that the source code is open to the public, that's all. That's why each of them have it's own license to list the conditions/restrictions the creators/maintainers want to impose. By practical example I meant a "field of endeavor" where someone would be in doubt whether or not they could use a software because of the Hippocratic License's "Open Source" title.

[yawpitch]

It's not unreasonable that there could be confusion with the license as currently worded, since the license text itself does not draw attention to the fact that it's incompatible with the OSD's existing Criteria 5 and 6 ... assuming someone ONLY receives the HL's LICSENSE.md file and does not actually read either this (by then likely closed) github issue on the repo, or takes the effort to redirect themselves to Paragraph 2 of the author's note they might be left unclear, which could be an issue for a variety of reasons for authors who switch to this license and their downstream consumers, even those engaging in otherwise ethical activities.

Since the OSI is unlikely to amend the criteria due to entrenched interests it seems like its in the interests of any proposed EOSS community to actively differentiate itself rather than try to maintain any ambiguity or potential for confusion. Based on the writings of one of the OSI founders -- which seem to be at least as if not more morally tenuous and unsound as those of the founder of the FSF ... seriously, I feel cheapened having read them -- I should think it might be better explicitly and loudly distinguish the HL from what's apparently the fruits of a poisoned tree.

In other words I'm not sure such a practical example is useful, even if one could be found... reducing confusion and highlighting why the hard fork is happening -- and thus what is sorely lacking from the OSD -- is actually served by acceding to the request to differentiate.

However I do not believe that converting "open source" -> "software" as in #9 accomplishes that ... it removes confusion to the benefit of the OSD without making it clear that the OSD is flawed.

[pearu]

OSI Mission: One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the community.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 27(2): Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

So, I read it as follows: OSI (people maintaining OSD) is the author of Open Source Definition and has the right to protect the moral interests from maintaining OSD. When the term "open source software" is not removed from Hippocratic license then the license itself may trigger actions based on the grounds that it considers important.

[yawpitch]

OSI Mission: One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the good of the community.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 27(2): Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

So, I read it as follows: OSI (people maintaining OSD) is the author of Open Source Definition and has the right to protect the moral interests from maintaining OSD. When the term "open source software" is not removed from Hippocratic license then the license itself may trigger actions based on the grounds that it considers important.

Interesting reading and argument, but no, since their copyright in the OSD and all the intellectual property they own has been respected. The OSI will be the first to admit, nowadays, that they have neither moral nor material interest in the term "open source", since they cannot claim to be the authors of it. Their interest is only in the market value of the term, since they derive financial benefit from certifying its use.

Further, if I read their site correctly the OSD itself is licensed under CC BY 4.0 ... meaning that anyone can amend the OSD itself, they need merely attribute the OSI when doing so.

[ghost]

Being able to ammend the OSD to create a different EOSD of course is possible unter CC-BY. But, again, to avoid confusion, please don't call the result a definition of Open Source licenses or any software using such a license Open Source. Call both by different names.

[yawpitch]

Being able to ammend the OSD to create a different EOSD of course is possible unter CC-BY. But, again, to avoid confusion, please don't call the result a definition of Open Source licenses or any software using such a license Open Source. Call both by different names.

I've argued above for introducing such an amendment and then modifying the HL to replace "Open Source" with "Ethical Open Source", or whatever designator is chosen for the descendent community.

That said the gist of the argument being made by the author of the HL is that the OSD itself is incomplete / lacking / compromised and that a new version of it should be issued. It's a political statement meant to draw attention to those flaws ... by getting caught up in a debate over naming you're not, sadly, considering the actual point, which is that by using the OSD you're creating software that empowers legal-but-immoral violations of the UNDHR.

Dragging people into that debate is rather like the tactic of trying to make a debate about gun control instead a debate about the definition of "assault weapon"... engaging in a "use the right names" argument is a red herring.

Thus I agree, amend the HL if only to stop allowing well-meaning people to get distracted by a non-issue, and to remove a faulty rhetorical arrow from the quiver of the bad-meaning.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

OSI Mission: One of our most important activities is as a standards body, maintaining the Open Source Definition for the GOOD of the community.

Also he OSI: Giving everyone freedom means giving EVIL people freedom, too.

Am I the only one seeing a problem there? Why are we following this after all?

[pearu]

@rafaelcastrocouto , according to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, EVIL people have rights too.

[yawpitch]

@pearu but among those is not the right to engage in EVIL actions. Or to abuse, absent my permission, my moral and material rights to that end.

I'm quite fine with an EVIL person using my software for GOOD ends.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

according to UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, EVIL people have rights too.

I never said that they don't. As I said before, there's no such thing as evil people, only people (maybe that's the whole point here). But what I am saying is that I see no reason to give attention to an organization that has some serious ethical issues and that appropriated a common term and now considers itself in the right to tell others that they can't use it they way they see fit.

[yawpitch]

I never said that they don't. As I said before, there's no such thing as evil people, only people (maybe that's the whole point here). But what I am saying is that I see no reason to give attention to an organization that has some serious ethical issues and that appropriated a common term and now considers itself in the right to tell others that they can't use it they way they see fit.

Now we're digressing well outside the scope of what can be solved in any number of pull requests -- though I'll just toss out that empirical observation over the last few years indicates that there may be non-evil people so tainted by evil ideas that they're indistinguishable from evil, even given wide latitude for not having been somehow created that way -- perhaps we should bring it down a bit closer to the ground?

The author of this proposed license has themselves directly involved the OSD in the discussion, which means they've involved the OSI, intentionally ... in my reading that's specifically because attention need to be paid to the OSI's definition and "ownership" of a communal term.

The options, really, are:

1. Remove all mention of "open source" to accede to the concerns of those who accept the OSD as written, whether or not that acceptance is based on sound reasoning. I'd argue it isn't.
2. Retain the existing mentions of "open source"... that will lead to re-hashing this issue over and over, but maybe that seemingly minor part of the debate is worthwhile. I question if it is, but I might be wrong to do so.
3. Reclaim the term "open source" by re-contextualizing it ... this is the EOSD (or some better name if someone comes up with one) idea. The advantage here is it removes the spur that will continue to bring up what is, IMHO, a Red Herring, but the disadvantage is that it waters down any specific transgressive intent in using "open source" unedited. If the HL is actually meant to be used though I'm not sure the transgressive intent would telegraph.

There may be other options I haven't considered... I'm quite curious what @CoralineAda will decide.

[TheCreeper]

Could this license be extended to such things as a book and how the information contained within should be used? Or would this license only be applicable to the source files of a book rather than the compiled version that is distributed?

[rafaelcastrocouto]

Could this license be extended...

Sure it can, you could make a PR to extend it to other products.

Back to this issue topic, just to make everything clear, the claim here is:

"You cannot call your code OPEN SOURCE if you don't allow it to be used to endanger, harm, or threaten"

Do you people really agree with that?

[pearu]

@rafaelcastrocouto , equally to that, the claim here is also: "You cannot call your code OPEN SOURCE if you don't allow it to be used to do good"

Note that good or bad may mean different things to different people.

[rafaelcastrocouto]

@pearu sorry but you are just plainly wrong. First I was guessing you meant "... if you only allow it to be used to do good". But either way it's just wrong. 1 - There's no discussion on "allow(ing) it to be used to do good" nowhere on this thread. 2 - The claim is that HL "contradicts the requirements 5 and 6" (as yourself wrote it). 3 - "... if you don't allow it to be used to do good" is OBVIOUSLY NOT EQUAL TO "... if you don't allow it to be used to endanger, harm, or threaten".

So I'm gonna ask again, does anyone agrees with: "You cannot call your code OPEN SOURCE if you don't allow it to be used to endanger, harm, or threaten"???

[yawpitch]

"You cannot call your code OPEN SOURCE if you don't allow it to be used to do good"

Note that good or bad may mean different things to different people.

@pearu I can appreciate where you're trying to go there, but the UDHR simply doesn't allow that much room for moral relativity.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Again, assuming you admit they exist, the inherently evil have all the rights of the inherently good, but they do not enjoy the right to act in an evil manner towards others. The UDHR is not a "Libertarian" -- IMHO the fundamentally flawed and morally bankrupt philosophy of fantasists -- document, but it is a recognized standard of international law.

In theory anyone wishing to use the licensed software for acts that violate the UDHR rights of another is attempting to engage in a crime they have no right to commit in the first place. Removing their license to use your work for that end shouldn't need to be stated as an automatic revocations, but as there are now signatory governments violating the UDHR on an hour-by-hour basis there may need to be a way to state that revocation more effectfully.

[pearu]

No, I don't think I am wrong. The point is that OSD does not allow any kind of restrictions given in items 5 and 6, be these restrictions for good or for bad.

There are other institutions that deal with peoples bad actions. I guess OSD is not about choosing the good or bad side, it's aim is just to remain apolitical.

If one wishes to influence people doing bad by not allowing to use certain software, using Hippocratic license would be one way. But an "open source" software is not.

[pearu]

@rafaelcastrocouto , no, I really meant what I wrote. Note that the content of the restriction here is not important, the important is that no restrictions are allowed.

[yawpitch]

No, I don't think I am wrong. The point is that OSD does not allow any kind of restrictions given in items 5 and 6, be these restrictions for good or for bad.

Yes, and that's the fundamental flaw in the OSD that forms the basis for releasing the HL, see the note from the author:

My call to arms: amend clauses 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition to usher in a new era of ethical development, and for fucks sake #NoTechForICE.

The whole point is that the OSD is insufficient in light of modern developments since it was published.

There are other institutions that deal with peoples bad actions. I guess OSD is not about choosing the good or bad side, its aim is just to remain apolitical.

The OSI is definitely political, and has been since its founding. They're not quite the same approach to political as the FSF, but they're definitely not apolitical.

If one wishes to influence people doing bad by not allowing to use certain software, using Hippocratic license would be one way. But an "open source" software is not.

That depends on whether or not the OSD gets amended as described in the author's note referenced above. If we've somehow delegated authority to define a generic term -- traditionally a work of the commons over time -- to a specific entity with an agenda and biases all its own, then that entity can be moved to redefine it.

Since, again, the OSI has no legal claim, whatsoever, to the term "open source", it's unclear if we (meaning the broader FOSS community, or humanity in general) actually delegated that authority.

[pearu]

OK, I see that the HL author's aim was to introduce the controversy with OSD clauses 5 and 6 on purpose in order to support her political agenda. Hence, the discussion held in this issue is pretty much futile.