No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3]

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source.

Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good.

Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4]

"Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules.

This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html

[2] http://www.opensource.org/

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition...

[4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx

So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me.

I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

  Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project 
  is that you should not charge money for distributing 
  copies of software, or that you should charge as little 
  as possible — just enough to cover the cost. This is a
  misunderstanding. Actually, we encourage people who
  redistribute free software to charge as much as they 
  wish or can.

However, you need to do more than they have done if you want to clearly and unambiguously define a phrase, especially one that has legal and commercial implications. You need to make everyone in the world agree on the definition and refrain from using it in any other way. That hasn't happened yet, except perhaps for those within the industry.

As Richard Stallman says:

"However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."

"The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”."

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

If he doesn't agree with the OSI definition, I think that we can agree that it is not universally accepted.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and the (long) list of free software licenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

From the history of the OSI:

The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.

The only difference is marketing not substance.

Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it.

Just look at the link you provided for 'open source definition': "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:", and №1 being: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

However, it is explicitly forbidden in the licence to re-sell it or re-distribute it.

The term pre-dates the organisation's re-definition of it for their own purposes.

It's not because the OSI prefers, it's because it's the mainstream, generally accepted current definition of the word. I mean, if I sold you a "broascasting system", would you accept something that casts seeds out?

The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license

It doesn't. It implies a set of conditions they have to meet. BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache, WTFPL, are all different Open Source licenses.

icebraining mentioned "gay". Today, who in their right mind would call a joyful person gay? That's what the term originally meant, but has since has been completely replaced with meaning "homosexual".

The term "Open Source" is the same. It may have meant something different some one and a half decades back. That meaning, however, has completely fallen out of use. Just as "gay" meaning "joyful" has. It's deceptive to use it that way.

I'm not convinced of that - in fact, I think that is a little naive.

I don't believe that the OSI definition is completely accepted by the uneducated population at large, and don't believe that the term "open source" is not used by various software companies in ways that mislead and obfuscate the OSI meaning.

I'll quote Mr Stallman:

"However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source."

"The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”."

I don't accept that the other meanings have completely fallen out of use.

Edit: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

- If you are given the binaries, you are also given the source.

- You may modify the source to your liking.

- You may distribute the source or a compiled version of it at will.

Note it says nothing about licensing of mods and even the distribution. Each license is actually tackling how modifications and dependencies are treated.

Nothing in the philosophy says you cannot sell it. At all. Nor in any os license.

Remember the first analogy Stalman says: Free software: "Think Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer."

It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, it matters what the laws says and what it allows you to do. Many companies don't want you to resell their products on ebay (their philosophy). However, the first sale doctrine says something different (the law).

So while you may not like someone re-packaging and re-selling open source software, as long as they are following the license, there isn't much you can do about it.