[vezzy-fnord]

not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations

Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license.

Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

When you're talking about software, you should not blame others for assuming "free" refers to the FSF definition, especially in announcements targeted towards technically inclined audiences.

[zzalpha]

It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an excessively restrictive and ideologically motivated definition, what with OSI and FSF definitions being largely equivalent. For some reason I doubt you believe this.

Why would you say that?

I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".

[dragonwriter]

> I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.

The OSI doesn't define "free" at all, it defines "open source" via the Open Source Definitions. The FSF defines "free software" via the Free Software Definition. Neither of these definitions restrict user freedoms, though the FSF tends to develop and promote licenses that arguably do so (the licenses the FSF's develops and promotes are not the only licenses it recognizes at fitting the Free Software Definition, which is pretty similar in substance to the OSI's Open Source Definition.)

[zzalpha]

Yeah, fair enough, I shouldn't have mentioned them (to be honest I listed them reflexively because the OP brought 'em up without really thinking about it).

[Dylan16807]

They don't restrict user freedom, they restrict distributor freedom with the goal of helping the user. This is a key distinction, because the end user can do anything whatsoever to the source code, no matter what the license wants.

[djur]

Since when does the OSI advocate for copyleft licenses, explicitly or otherwise? It was in fact founded -- and the term "open source" was coined -- in order to advocate for free software licensing separately from the FSF's ethical positions and promotion of copyleft.

[zzalpha]

Yup, agreed, my mistake.