> They own the trademark of "Open Source"

So every time I talk about open source I'm a dirty trademark infringer and IP pirate?

The OSI emphatically does NOT:

own the trademark of “Open Source”.

They tried, and the USPTO denied their application for same. As such they have any such right to exercise.

They own a trademark for “Open Source Initiative”, and attempt to persuade the public that they alone define the term “Open Source”.

https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

This is trivial to look up. They do not in fact own the trademark "open source". Apparently I can't share a direct link to uspto search results, but you can search by owner and see they have 7 trademarks, none of which are for the term "open source".

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results

They own the trademark "Open Souce Initiative," which they say you can use with no advanced written permission if you follow all specific guidelines, including:

> the use of the term “Open Source” is used solely in reference to software distributed under OSI Approved Licenses. [1]

So you can refer to any software as "Open Source," regardless of their definition. But, if you call a piece of software "Open Source" alongside the use of the Open Source Initiative's trademark, then you must also use their definition of "Open Source," unless you otherwise have written permission.

[1]: https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

In that context it is important to differentiate Free from Open Source software.

The OSI is specifically built with a different vision from the FSF.

Free software, shall always be free, with almsource and ideally all derived works.

Open Source wants the code to be spread and for that allows inclusion with commercial software. (i.e. Microsoft was able to take open source TCP/IP stacks from BSD (BSD License) and integrate with Windows 95. That wouldn't have worked with a GPL Free Software implementation. (Even LGPL)

The supporting argument there is: By allowing that Microsoft's implementation was fully compatible to the rest of the world instead of having "bugs" (purposely?) in their own implementation, which would limit interoperability.

The free software argument is that they now took the code and closed it, not giving users a freedom to review (verify) and fix themselves. Which allowed Windows to play in TCP world instead of being an outsider.

If so, I think they made their point alr? I mean, this list is completly riddled to the brim with companies that use open-source! https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsors

As all is based on copyright you can't distinguish between individuals and organisations as the law does not.

I don't think you need to distinguish individuals from corporations in order to advance human freedom. You can make the licenses such that any corporation that uses them to provide services to users must provide the users with required freedoms. If businesses can make money while respecting those terms, all the better!

The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its internal users with certain freedoms, and if they do that then mission accomplished.

It would have made for a better discussion if you had stated openly that you are into some fringe self-made anti-org software license. That would have made it clear what you actually want to discuss.

Is there a license that does address that loophole?

A few things on the "internal use loophole"--first, I'm not sure a semantic debate over the meaning of "distribution" functions as a loophole. Courts are quite capable and ready to consider questions such as these, so I'm not sure it really matters very much. Outside of the academic exercises playing out like this one, actual fact and circumstance relevant to any given case play critically into its ultimate legal determination(s), and 8-12 person juries and/or appeals courts exist to handle things otherwise.

All that said, I'm not sure what your calling this out was meant to imply in the context of the person you quoted?

I note the GPL itself does not differentiate between internal and external use, the "internal use" language comes only from the FSF GPL FAQ.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo...

So probably a court or a different upstream could interpret distribution as including distribution between employees.

They allow a major component of the model, the data, to be withheld.

It's not just about reproducibility (although I do think that's important), it's about analysis of the model. With traditional software you have a pretty well defined "this code does this", but with machine learning models one of the only ways to validate that bias or propaganda hasn't been inserted during training.