I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests.
"The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from?
"but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License.
It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?
"The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from?
"but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License.
It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?