[RomanPushkin]

> considered open source

This is misleading.

<quote> There is the free (libre) software movement, and there is the open source non-movement: two different viewpoints based on different values. </quote>

(RMS, from emails)

"open source" is misleading, since it often refers to proprietary software which is just software with open source code, and you can't do much with that source. I would kindly recommend to revisit your vocabulary.

[stonogo]

> This is misleading.

No it isn't. The term "open source" is unpopular with Stallman and his acolytes, but is in common use and has a very clear definition stewarded by the Open Source Institute: https://opensource.org/osd

Whether that term or that definition is or is not aligned with your priorities isn't relevant to the fact that this term is in common use in the IT industry and this definition of it is the most commonly accepted.

In other words, nobody claimed it was free software, and Stallman doesn't get to just "declare" open source to be a non-movement like Michael Scott "declaring" bankruptcy.

[dizhn]

I believe parent was saying this is NOT open source by OSI's definition either. That's the misleading bit.

[Thorrez]

Are you saying ssddanbrown should use a different word? ssddanbrown is just using the word from the article title.