“There are plenty of actors right now who, because of the brand equity [of open source] and the regulatory implications, want to change the definition, and that’s terrible,” Villa said.
Clear parameters
While there are clear arguments for applying additional criteria that incorporates the “spirit” of what open source is intended to be all about, having clear parameters — as defined by a license — keeps things simple and less subject to nuanced subjectivity.
How much community engagement would be necessary for something to be truly “open source”? On a practical and legal level, keeping the definition limited to the license makes sense.