zlacker

>>Philip+(OP)
I see the danger of corporations "reimbursing" people to work on very specific plugins and extensions, that coincidentally match the requirement of the corporation, at 12€/hour to evade taxes, social security contributions and minimum wage. As a German, I oppose that petition since "open source" is a vaguely defined term, and might not be clearly seperable from commercial work.

>>little+gb
Open source is defined by the Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/osd

At least it should be. I'm not sure what definition this petition would use.

>>tovej+Ob
The petition should use a more restricted definition, because the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good. That a lot of open source software is foundational to how most other software is written is incidental for the OSI, but important for this recognition.

In fact I see no reason why you can't already get this recognition in the existing legal framework by creating an association with a specific scope.

>>asmor+ed
> the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good

So it should be the FSF's definition of free software, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

>>fsflov+oV1
RMS famously had no problem with dual licensing. The definition should. None of the GPL licenses protect from bad stewardship focused on maintaining commercial viability of some product either.