Including the idea that you should be able to pay whoever you want to host a thing, without needing the permission of the authors to do so. While hosted things weren't common back then, the nearest analog is vendors selling you the thing (oh physical media, before widespread internet!), and that was always understood from the start as part of the full spirit and original intent of open source. That anyone could sell you the thing without license from the copyright holder.

Readings from RMS one of the originators of the "full spirit and original intent" of open source are also pretty clear here -- that part of the full spirit and original intent is nobody can tell you what to do with the software or limit what you do with it -- including basing your business on it without license from the author.

The fact that the OSI definition is what it is is also notable. It's not like the OSI definition/requirements/specification have _changed_, it's stayed the same for 25 years. And it was originally taken from Debian! If it didn't cover the original intent and spirit of open source, why weren't many people upset about it way back then? At what point did OSI "lose touch with their mission"... by... _not_ changing the 25-year-old requirements?

The original spirit and intent of open source was never about supporting ways for authors monetize code -- quite the opposite.

That doesn't mean you have to agree, you can have _different_ intent and spirit yourself, and it seems many people agree with you. You can think the original intent was always naive and a mistake. Or you can think times have changed and the original intent that may have worked at one point is not longer useful.

But what you can't do is retroactively redefine the "original intent and full spirit" of open source.