[yieldcrv]

Open source never meant free to begin with and was never software specific, that’s a colloquialism and I’d love to say “language evolves” in favor of the software community’s use but open source is used in other still similar contexts, specifically legal and public policy ones

FOSS specifically means/meant free and open source software, the free and software words are there for a reason

so we don’t need another distinction like “source available” that people need to understand to convey an already shared concept

yes, companies abuse their community’s interest in something by blending open source legal term as a marketing term

[viraptor]

This is not a space for "language evolves". Open source has very specific definitions and the distinctions there matter for legal purposes https://opensource.org/licenses

[naniwaduni]

The terms of the licenses have legal bearing. The definitions of open source are a historical accident that mostly traces back to "well GPLv2 already exists".

[yieldcrv]

the software community is the one trying to evolve the language in favor of this software license specific use case

[jasonjmcghee]

Whether or not something is "free" is a separate matter and subject to how the software is licensed. If there is no license it is, by definition "source available", not open source. "source available" is not some new distinction I'm making up.

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46175760