[zekevermillion]

People are talking past each other here b/c we can't decide if we're concerned primarily with the ethics of software freedom, or just with confusion of Open Source (TM) labeling.

This discussion says to me that maybe RMS was right to insist on using the term "free software", and to refuse to promote "open source". When we debate the merits of an "open source" (or more confusingly, a "FOSS") license, people end up talking past each other. Are we talking about what is an effective licensing / development strategy, or are we talking about software ethics? People who do not agree with the free software ethos are understandably confused to find themselves criticized on moral grounds for choosing a license that makes source available but does not permit full exercise of user freedom. Hey, I thought we called it open source b/c we didn't want to focus on user freedom as ideology? Right? Maybe that was a mistake.

My personal view is that there is no logical problem in an author talking about open source as the basis for a restrictive, source-available license -- as long as there is no implication that the license is endorsed by a particular standards body. And conversely if you are a proponent of software freedom, maybe you have to recognize that there is some merit in referring to this as "free software" instead of something else, to avoid confusion.