“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.
I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.
The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.
There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.
“Only X is opensource because OSI says so!”. It’s like believers referring to the bible for stuff without thinking themselves. “The bible says it’s so, so it must be right!”, while disregarding that circumstances have changed.
I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.
The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.
1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
