[jordigh]

> As a reminder, "open source" doesn't mean free, in case anyone goes off on that tangent.

As a reminder, yes it does:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html

I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym.

http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...

I'm sure Microsoft understands what open source means, because they don't call their source-visible licenses "open source". "Shared source" is the term they invented for their non-free, source-visible licenses. If they are talking about open source in an article, I do think they really do mean open source.

[jholman]

I was all set to downvote you, but I thought I should read your actual argument first (madness, I know), so I did that. And then you got an upvote from me instead, because I found your blogpost to be a useful contribution to the discussion.

I relate this narcissistic tale in the hopes that it encourages others to actually read your argument.

[castratikron]

>I don't know where people got the idea that open source is not a synonym for free software. It was always meant to be a synonym.

Probably from rms himself.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

[jordigh]

He also says it's a synonym:

   “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software, does it 
   matter which name you use?

It refers to the same software, but one emphasises one part or another. It's like saying "developing country" to emphasise that supposedly it's working on improving or "third world country" to emphasise that it's not part of the two big warring Cold-war era groups, but the two terms refer to the same thing.

[wantab]

And you would be wrong. There are plenty of open source projects that are not free. That Microsoft wants to name some of their projects "shared source" doesn't change that. And I'd bet we will see you in court should you do anything with Microsoft's.