The Open Source Defenition you provide is obviously copied from DFSG by a company named itself after Open Source which itself claims to be founded much after the word "Open Source" was widly used in public media.
Even if I don't call it a complete scam, I never would consider its defenition as the official for the term.
@firstname.lastname@example.org Thanks for your comment but I don’t know what is needed for OSI definition (OSD) to be considered enough official for you. If Stallman refers to this definition as the official definition of Open Source in his article “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” to me it is more than enough to recognize this definition as the official one. I don’t see any point of dismissing the existence of this definition. I would even consider such dismissal more harmful than accepting it. The same way free shouldn’t be considered as free of cost, open should be considered as available.
Let me quote this line: “We in the free software movement don’t think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters.”
The point is the OSI defenition is the most official defenition available, but not strong enough to be THE official defenition of the term.
The creation of the term itself is a misunderstanding of what's going on with Netscape by the public media of the time.
OSI is just an opportunist company, created to make money from such misunderstanding and tried to provoke this gap for profit.
From a practical perspective, Open Source is just a malformed "Free Software" word.
با دوستان خود گفتگو کنید و دوستان تازه پیدا کنید. عکس، ویدیو، و نوشتههای خود را به اشتراک بگذارید. پرسادون یکی از سرورهای شبکهٔ اجتماعی بزرگ ماستودون است و میخواهد محیطی ایمن و پایدار برای کاربران فارسیزبان باشد. تا وقتی که به سیاستهای کاربری و شرایط خدمات پرسادون احترام میگذارید، از بودن کنار شما در پرسادون خوشحال خواهیم شد.