glind72

Maybe the original founders yes, but the board and the decisions they make on how it's governed now is not the same group. That's like saying the original authors of the constitution never meant for it to be a living and evolving document. I don't think they ever intended it to be the one and only definition of the term and licenses.

You could look at the OSI here for open source definitions. https://opensource.org/licenses/category

A number of Affero GPL type license have started to emerge and the community source. We started working on our own version here to allow us to still monetize or share restricted versions with fewer legal concerns: https://github.com/buildlyio/communitysource

This is really interesting. Specifically this quote "it’s false advertising to claim that software is “open source” when it’s not licensed under an open source license". Also, is opensource.org and the OSI the only organization that can define it and if so should they be? To me this is more about false advertising and changing a license. Another reason to look at a tool like debricked for license management.

I kind of agree, I see a possible move to wearable devices as moving the integrated device out of the device. A speaker and mic in watch allows for voice communication. Google glass like devices for cameras and display with antennas and sensors embedded in clothing. These types of peripherals could be developed by third parties and connect to a core "device" and be somewhat platform independent.