> because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase
You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?
This VP specifically states MongoDB "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" presumably referencing their own organization's definition of open source. What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source. She conflates a non-OSI-approved license with the definition of open source very blatantly.
As someone just above said open source for many simply means the source code is open (can be viewed).
Edit: Realizing now that "open source" may be a genericized trademark held by one of their board and we may need to ignore their assertions in this thread.
> What's worse is their current definition technically qualifies MongoDB as open source.
I don't agree, the modified section 13 appears (at least to me) to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of section 9 of the OSD:
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software. [...] For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
The new SSPL requires that all of your server configuration and tools be distributed under the terms of the SSPL. This is so badly worded that it could include your operating system kernel (which, on Linux, would not be possible since GPLv2 is incompatible with this new license).
Also, the scope of "providing a service" isn't limited to network services (which is what you'd think). No, it applies to any service "includ[ing], without limitation [...] offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.".
I'm sure you can easily come up with some examples whether this concept of "providing a service" will run into strange consequences when your accountant is giving you a download link for MongoDB as well as all of Windows.
Open source is mostly objective, unlike 'good software'. The parent comment stated in caps that MongoDB is not open source, which is objectively untrue. It's a silly thing to bicker about, but the original should have probably said something along the lines of 'OSI approved open source license'.
The only objective definition of Open Source I know of is OSI's. Everything else is a hodge-podge of whatever the user of the word feels it's open. Is it reading the code? Modifying it? Redistributing it? There's no consensus besides OSI.
But their definition does not restrict it to OSI approved licenses, so their assertion its not open source because it hasn't been approved is not valid.
You are really hung up on this. Where did they say they were restricting the use of the phrase? If they said: "MongoDB is not good software" would you be saying they aren't allowed to restrict MongoDB from saying they are good software?