How I realised “Open Source” is a better term than “Free Software”

"because >99% of computer users are non-programmers, making the freedoms to study, modify & redistribute not directly relevant."

This is wrong. It is very relevant to users that their software be free, when they want to have it modified to fit their changing needs and when the corporation who sold it to them cannot and will not do it. (They will never do it, because either the corporation has folded since long, or it's too big to deal with small users and their petty specific needs). How many years are bugs lingering in widely used software: as long as they don't matter to a majority of users, they won't be dealt with.

So, the situation where a would-be paying customer approaches a programmer to perform some correction or maintainance on some software, is not theorical at all, and in this situation the relevance of having freedom software is directly perceived by the customer and the programmer, since the later cannot work (at any acceptable cost, technically) on proprietary software, while it would be trivial on freedom software.

"It’s not really about Freedom at all, because >99% of computer users are non-programmers, making the freedoms to study, modify & redistribute not directly relevant."

It's like saying >99% of people don't own news agencies, so requiring government approval to publish a story is not directly relevant. It is relevant - to everyone who might want to read the story, or in this case, use the software.

This is also the same logic that was used to advocate (unsuccessfully, for now) for mandatory DRM in TVs: "This protects the rights of artists, while only limiting the rights of a very small number of people who make TVs." What it ignores is that it also deprives everyone of the right to buy a DRM-free TV, thus restricting everyone, not just the few TV manufacturers.