> I'm saying that the claims made by the OP are true, and there's nothing anyone can possibly say about the bigger movement that can contradict those claims, because the movement, and what it is, and what it's like, are all not relevant.

Which claims? “Open Source Does Not Imply Open Community” is what I am responding to and I think it’s very obvious how the intent and social norms of the Open Source movement are relevant to that.

> I thought the question under discussion was "Does publishing open source obligate someone to form or engage with a community?

There is a difference between merely implying something and obligations. From my very first comment:

> Opening the code is a good thing and there’s no obligation for you to do anything more. But it isn’t doing what open source was designed to do; it’s ignoring a key part of it.

I am not saying that you are obliged to engage with the community, I’m saying that there’s a cultural norm to do so – so yes, open source does imply community. I then followed up by showing that this goal has been embedded in the Open Source movement from the very beginning.

> the definition of open source

You keep using this phrase. The OSD is a set of criteria used to define which licenses qualify as open source. The OSD is not a definition for the Open Source movement. You can keep referring to it as “the definition of open source”, but it’s not the definition in the context of this discussion. It has a narrower scope than this discussion, defining one specific aspect of the movement.

> Either you agree with the statement, in which case I think it makes it harder to argue against my bigger point, or you don't agree, and I tried to give you the opportunity to elaborate.

I wasn’t talking about the OSD at all, so rephrasing what I am saying in terms of the OSD is nonsensical. It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree – it’s not something I said and it’s not relevant to the point I was making.

> what point exactly were you making by bringing it up?

Again, you are using “Open Source” and “OSD” as synonyms when I am continually pointing out that the OSD defines only the license aspect of the Open Source movement and I am talking about the movement as a whole.

You took a quote that was very clearly ascribing the motivations and character of the Open Source movement and rephrased it to be about the OSD. It wasn’t about the OSD, it was about the movement.

I’ll quote it again:

> The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community.

Community participation has always been a cultural norm of the Open Source movement. From day one. The fact that they didn’t write it down in the OSD, which is a set of criteria for software licenses does not change that. So when somebody says that “Open Source Does Not Imply Open Community”, it’s fair to say that yes it does. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that somebody is obliged to accept community participation, and it is not anything that software licenses deal with. It’s about social norms.