My irritation aside, though, I can't decide whether the author is passively ignorant of the rest of the iceberg, or actively chooses to ignore it.
But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:
* use the software for any purpose
* examine the source
* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it
* modify the software in any way
* distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original
Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.
Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card.
Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily.
If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
Maybe I could add a "Further Reading" section at the end though with links to such topics.
Perhaps this is because their goal is to promote the GNU licenses, not to be objective about it.
OSI was created in part in reaction to ambiguity and confusion around "free software."
Most end users are just happy there’s a ton of free, quality code to run and study. Admittedly that’s only the case because of the FSF, but I think they should just accept that “open source” is a perfectly good term to describe software that is free and you can download the source.
Everything else is licensing nuances e.g, politics
Despite their mission having been an overwhelming success.
The idea of Free Software, at its most extreme, exists as a useful endpoint of an "Overton Window" for software. Which is to say, all software benefits from its existence even if they don't e.g. sign on to the GPL. You're forced to consider it as a possibility.
Without it, we'd probably think of "Open Source" as the most "open" software can be -- which, as OP proves, is quite wrong and nebulous.
For me, the perfect concrete case of this was here reading about youtube-dl being removed for Github. It became clear to me that a not-insignificant number of professionals in this space absolutely equated "deleted from Github" as "literally gone forever such that no one could have it again."
People will forget about the idea of free software and taking a copy of the code home with you as an important idea to be preserved, unless the FSF et al remain.
Richard Stallman and GPL discussions certainly do mention ethics as part of the considerations. I agree that no person is completely disjoint from ethical considerations, with intelligence. But as this thread explores, there are multiple points of view, unclear and untested aspects legally within multiple legal jurisdictions.
But you make a large leap when you say "they should not mention" .. It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one, it is more in common with persuasive, political speech than logic there.
As noted by others, a useful simplification is to focus on one particular LICENSE at a time. Is this license ... x y z. As Google did long ago and as Github started to do and as the OSI does and as FSF does... like that.. not debate on the entire concept, but instead focus on the implementation, as software does.
I was not talking about free software as in the adjective free applied to software. But free software as in the term from the free software movement where its members call code that follows their ideals of what is ethical free software.
>It is a dramatic statement, not a logical one
The logical reason is that free software is less inclusive because it considers most SWE unethical for working on proprietary software. If the term open source works just as well and is more inclusive it should be used.