The problem is in messaging. The whole point of the OSI was that the FSF was too ideological to be appealing to most businesses. The problem, is that the ideological angle is the point. The OSI would have never pitched the GPL, and the FSF would have never pitched the MIT license.

When you release software under a license that makes approximately zero demands of the other party, the other party won't respect your software. When you release software under a license that makes even low effort demands of the user, like reciprocation, they will.

The MIT license is a FSF certified "Free Software" license, it provides all of the "Essential Freedoms". The MIT is not "copyleft" like GPL is but copyleft is not the same thing as free software.

Once again, that's not the point. The ideology required to promote copyleft licenses at all is the point. The OSI's standpoint is that you can distribute software that provides the user with their freedom. The FSF's standpoint is that you are ethically obligated to.

That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :)

I'll let Stallman speak for me:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Stallman made up his own definition of open source which is different than the common definition. The OSI best sums it up here https://opensource.org/osd their definition is essentially the same as the FSF essential freedoms. Without classifying "Stallman's definition of Open Source" people will assume something much like the OSI one.

What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available. Stallman shows his lack of communication skills again here by endlessly fighting to redefine words for no purpose.

> What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available

That's absolutely wrong, as clearly explained in the article I linked to.

Stallman appears to be considering "source available" licenses which forbid modification (and sometimes deployment) as "open source." This is not the definition of open source that everyone else uses. Certainly the OSI would not agree. There is more information here: https://opensource.org/osd

RMS was around in the 1980s when "open source" was still being defined. So maybe he thinks he can define it however he likes. But to the rest of us it doesn't make sense, like saying "software that has a free software license, like GNU Emacs and Microsoft Word." One of those two doesn't belong in that sentence, and saying that I'm using my own custom definition of "free software" is a pretty shitty way to argue.