Open source never had any of the ethics or philosophy that free software has.
Free software > open source.
Free software > open source.
Companies like the flexibility in "open source", even companies who release code as GPL rarely talk about "free software", they are open source companies.
Is freeware free software? It is rather murky term for me.
If it's just free in price, then "freeware" is the correct term.
Or I download something like Irfanview for free from internet. That for consumer is free software to use...
It is clearly bad term when it can be used to mean entirely different thing in regular and common use.
The point here is that that linguistic peculiarity in just one language doesn't make the word 'free software' invalid or unsuitable, as long as 'free software' is a recognizable term (which it is). This is why FSF makes this explicitly clear with an entire article.
Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).
The difference between the free software movement and the open source software movement is essentially philosophical.
Apart from every example of GPL software, which can't be used under the permissive terms of Open Source. The last person I replied to about this used the word "essentially" here, also. Is there a common source slogan for this belief?
Also, somebody should tell all of the people who keep rewriting GPL stuff in order to have an MIT version.
eh, no, but it's a quite common word to express that idea.
Also:
> for this belief?
> Also, somebody should tell all of the people
Would you consider you might be wrong here? We are several people telling you so.