This keeps coming up, but I've been around for a while and I'm pretty sure that saying no restrictions on field of use was part of the "full spirit and original intent" of open source.
Including the idea that you should be able to pay whoever you want to host a thing, without needing the permission of the authors to do so. While hosted things weren't common back then, the nearest analog is vendors selling you the thing (oh physical media, before widespread internet!), and that was always understood from the start as part of the full spirit and original intent of open source. That anyone could sell you the thing without license from the copyright holder.
Readings from RMS one of the originators of the "full spirit and original intent" of open source are also pretty clear here -- that part of the full spirit and original intent is nobody can tell you what to do with the software or limit what you do with it -- including basing your business on it without license from the author.
The fact that the OSI definition is what it is is also notable. It's not like the OSI definition/requirements/specification have _changed_, it's stayed the same for 25 years. And it was originally taken from Debian! If it didn't cover the original intent and spirit of open source, why weren't many people upset about it way back then? At what point did OSI "lose touch with their mission"... by... _not_ changing the 25-year-old requirements?
The original spirit and intent of open source was never about supporting ways for authors monetize code -- quite the opposite.
That doesn't mean you have to agree, you can have _different_ intent and spirit yourself, and it seems many people agree with you. You can think the original intent was always naive and a mistake. Or you can think times have changed and the original intent that may have worked at one point is not longer useful.
But what you can't do is retroactively redefine the "original intent and full spirit" of open source.
You went for an incorrect reading of my message, and then built an entire argument against that incorrect reading of that message, and then even went on to assume the people who seem to agree with me also follow that incorrect reading.
Let me try to make my argument more clear. The spirit and intent of the original GPL is to use restrictions on the use of open source software, in such a way that it can only be modified and distributed and linked to other open source software that has the same provisions. This effectively limits the fields of use to companies that don't make money off proprietary software. This is the original intent of copyleft open source. Here is a quote from RMS himself: " Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong."
In the 2000's however, it turned out that the GPL wasn't copyleft enough, because most software was offered as a networked service, and the GPL didn't affect this field of use strongly enough to effectively have the copyleft effect. So we got the AGPL, which extended the restrictions of copyleft to the networked software industry.
And then in the 2010's it turned out that the AGPL wasn't copyleft enough, because big infrastructure builds proprietary platforms around AGPL software, and the restrictions of AGPL don't affect them as much. So that's where SSPL comes from.
You might see it differently, but I think the SSPL follows this spirit.
Including the idea that you should be able to pay whoever you want to host a thing, without needing the permission of the authors to do so. While hosted things weren't common back then, the nearest analog is vendors selling you the thing (oh physical media, before widespread internet!), and that was always understood from the start as part of the full spirit and original intent of open source. That anyone could sell you the thing without license from the copyright holder.
Readings from RMS one of the originators of the "full spirit and original intent" of open source are also pretty clear here -- that part of the full spirit and original intent is nobody can tell you what to do with the software or limit what you do with it -- including basing your business on it without license from the author.
The fact that the OSI definition is what it is is also notable. It's not like the OSI definition/requirements/specification have _changed_, it's stayed the same for 25 years. And it was originally taken from Debian! If it didn't cover the original intent and spirit of open source, why weren't many people upset about it way back then? At what point did OSI "lose touch with their mission"... by... _not_ changing the 25-year-old requirements?
The original spirit and intent of open source was never about supporting ways for authors monetize code -- quite the opposite.
That doesn't mean you have to agree, you can have _different_ intent and spirit yourself, and it seems many people agree with you. You can think the original intent was always naive and a mistake. Or you can think times have changed and the original intent that may have worked at one point is not longer useful.
But what you can't do is retroactively redefine the "original intent and full spirit" of open source.