[nothrabannosir]

Not OP, but---I've been in software and OSS for a long time now, and I never knew this. I thought the term for that was Free Software.

In fact, looking closely at that definition, isn't practically nothing open source?

"Open-source software is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose."

I.e. public domain? Any other license lives precisely to limit those rights of distribution, no?

Anyway, just pedantry. I see your point. Learn something new every day.

[lucideer]

I think you've highlighted an inaccuracy, or at least a lack of clarity, in the Wikipedia article. I guess a Wikipedian could argue it should be interpreted as "for any purpose depending on the chosen licence", but that's definitely not clear.

Re: Open source vs Free software, this is a matter for debate (the tendency being too associate Free software with the more copyleft/viral/gnu-ish side of things), but I would definitely say that both involve explicit licencing, as opposed to potentially implicit " all rights reserved " style regional copyright.

[Chris2048]

I would usually use the term "FLOSS", for Free-Liberte, OSS"

The L part clarified the type of freedom, as the FL clarifies that it's not just OSS.