An additional question might be, "Do we want to allow a tiny group of people to declare that they, and only they, can pick a generic term like open source and then dictate that their definition is the only definition?"
This is not "Kleenex" or "Champagne". This is a generic term.
You could say that about many standards, though. Nobody living was around when they decided what "meter" and "kilogram" mean. And the adjustments to the exact definitions are decided by tiny groups of experts. You don't get to vote on that.
But someone who decided on their own definition of "meter" would be causing confusion, so nobody wants to do that.
Open Source isn't a generic term, it's a weird term. The only reason it seems generic or natural to say is because of the OSI, which makes it more like Kleenex than champagne is like Kleenex.
Comments
An additional question might be, "Do we want to allow a tiny group of people to declare that they, and only they, can pick a generic term like open source and then dictate that their definition is the only definition?" This is not "Kleenex" or "Champagne". This is a generic term.
You could say that about many standards, though. Nobody living was around when they decided what "meter" and "kilogram" mean. And the adjustments to the exact definitions are decided by tiny groups of experts. You don't get to vote on that.
But someone who decided on their own definition of "meter" would be causing confusion, so nobody wants to do that.
Open Source isn't a generic term, it's a weird term. The only reason it seems generic or natural to say is because of the OSI, which makes it more like Kleenex than champagne is like Kleenex.