> The trouble is that attempting to learn from the lessons of past licenses tends to draw a lot of dogmatic outrage because said licenses either don't conform to the open source definition or four freedoms - or at least, not in the opinion of the OSI or FSF.
They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source, not with the idea of alternative licenses.
> They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source
If the precondition of learning lessons from past licenses is that they must follow the rules set by those past licenses as holy writ, then it follows that organizations like the FSF with leaders like RMS are the best you can hope for.
Personally, I think we as a community of developers are capable of better.
Open Source is a term invented in 1998 a direct alternative to Free Software which is the term used by RMS/FSF. Bringing up RMS is irrelevant. If you want to promote licenses which don't meet the definition of FOSS, that's fine! Just call it something else. Here are some ideas:
These conversations invariably get hijacked by OS/FS advocates who intentionally pick language designed to put any license that doesn't follow its dogma into one big bucket, despite the sometimes significant material differences between them.
They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source, not with the idea of alternative licenses.