This is a panel about who gets to decide what open source is (or is not)...what open source really "means" at the end of the day. Tim O'Reilly used to talk at OSCON about the importance of "unintended consequences" in the Open Source Effect but these days we're seeing companies and associations calling themselves open source but, in fact, working pretty hard to limit the possible consequences to their business models (including but not limited to creative attempts to attach consequences to code reuse as in Badgewear licenses). Is this a necessary component of the marriage of open source and Web 2.0?

Also in the last quarter we've seen the formation of several new "associations" such as the Linux Foundation and the Open Source Alliance in the U.S. Big business is still really interested in open source. Does this mean that marketing will increasingly frame the conversation around what is or isn't open source, or is there still a place for the Hacker ethic? Is the Hacker ethic even appropriate in cases where there is no distribution trigger?