@LucKeyProductions >The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, which was in turn a pointless re-writing of the 4 freedoms - the end result are too many requirements that are confusing and that are actually *looser* and therefore allow the users freedom to be subverted with a crafted proprietary license.

>GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo"
Asking people to change the project name and/or logo if they change the software is reasonable, provided such change is not onerous (i.e. requires hand editing thousands of files), as that does not infringe freedom 3, as swapping out a logo or changing a project name (even to <name>-ng) does not prevent the user from being able to make any change they want.

Changes are not guaranteed to make the software better - they may make it worse - and it's not fair for a developer to have their reputation tarnished by a dodgy edit of their program with the same name (while a dodgy edit under a different name is unlikely to be be mistaken as being from the developer).


When it comes to distribution and/or re-sale of unmodified versions, it would be a nonfree requirement to require that a logo or name is changed (but it would be entirely reasonable to require that any of such distribution mark in some reasonable way that what is being distributed is x program unmodified from developers y, by 3rd party z).

>which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for
The OSD & DFSG have the exact same wording that allows for such under section 4; "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."

You now see the problem with the DFSG and "OSD"?

They're too long, so people don't even read to section 4!

>One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.
As can be seen in the table you linked; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses?useskin=monobook#Approvals the "OSI" has approved multiple proprietary licenses, thus "open source" is clearly not about demanding freedom and has other goals.

As for the licenses the "OSI" have not approved, but the FSF has approved as free license - such lack of approval by the "OSD" appears to be lack of interest rather than a disapproval.