That's unfortunately a very narrow sense. In fact, the most common definition of open source implies open governance because of the wording. The exact definition will vary depending on exact authorities (OSI vs. FSF), governance transparency, relationship with patents, treatment of non-software contents and many others. This ambiguity is why I never say "open source" alone, at the very least I say F/OSS to be clear. Maybe I should start saying something more soon.
Open Source is a specific thing.
Free Software is a specific thing.
When I say Open Source I mean Open Source. When I say Free Software I mean Free Software.
The two are not equivalent.
Open Source is defines by OSI.
Free Software is defined by FSF.
(The clue is right there in the name.)
Feel free to refer to F/OSS if you want to refer to both. You definitely should be saying something more if you wish to include other models.
>> In fact, the most common definition of open source implies open governance because of the wording.
eh? I disagree with this. Open Source does not imply Open Governance. I'm not sure any license discusses governance at all. Organisations have governance rules, not (most / all ?) Licenses.
Your reading of the license name to imply some form of governance is, in my opinion, unwarranted.
> Open Source is a specific thing. Free Software is a specific thing. When I say Open Source I mean Open Source. When I say Free Software I mean Free Software. The two are not equivalent.
The hint is that you have slightly changed your terminology there, intentional or not. The capitalized terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" indeed have specific definitions. But generalized and thus non-capitalized words "open source" and "free software" had been fuzzier, and pretty much all conversations about F/OSS deal with that sense (the "common" sense hereafter). In fact the notation F/OSS is an acknowledgment that both words are, nominal definitions notwithstanding, used as if they are synonyms to each other.
> Open Source does not imply Open Governance. I'm not sure any license discusses governance at all.
Under the "common" sense, they are heavily related and this has been one cause of maintainer burnouts. Again, I don't like the term "open source" (capitalized or not) for that reason too.
> But generalized and thus non-capitalized words "open source" and "free software" had been fuzzier, and pretty much all conversations about F/OSS deal with that sense (the "common" sense hereafter).
You'll have to provide some source for this argument. The very fact that we're having this conversation means that the fact that "Open Source" and "open source" are different things is, at the very least, controversial.
"Free Software" has been a controversial term since the late 80s, I'll give you that, but the only confusion it ever brew was between "free as in freedom" vs "free as in free beer", and people thinking the term "free software" means "software I don't have to pay for" is rather common.
But, as I said in another subthread, this whole mess about the meaning of "open source" only started recently when people started overloading the term to mean something other than "whan has been defined as 'Open Source' by the people who coined that term in regards to software in the first place" (i.e., the OSI). There was no confusion 10 years ago.
Even 10 years ago, it was already very common to assume that "open sourced" softwares should necessarily open their development process. I have several first-hand accounts and tried very hard to decouple them to no avail. And this confusion was built into the origin of that term; esr's highly influential The Cathedral and the Bazaar [1] exactly suggested that after all. It is no surprise that the term became even fuzzier by now.
I feel that applying "common sense" to legal documents may lead you into trouble.
That aside, there are as many governance models are there are licenses - and they two are not linked in any way. I've certainly seen plenty of Open Source projects which are not in any shape or form Open Governance.
> I feel that applying "common sense" to legal documents may lead you into trouble.
Of course IANAL and we are not even talking about the legal aspect here, but legally speaking to be pedantic, the common sense does play a role when there is a reason to believe that some party failed to understand a deeper legal meaning. You can't arbitrarily replace any word in legal documents provided that definitions are given in advance, after all.
> That aside, there are as many governance models are there are licenses - and they two are not linked in any way.
Nominally not, but they are linked in the way that some sort of openness is heavily expected for most "open source" projects.
