> I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. I've heard Bruce Perens talk about it a few t

> I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. I've heard Bruce Perens talk about it a few times, and even on the OSI website (https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history) they state... "The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson." You could be right though and some may have seen the non-commercial aspects of the word free as a tertiary benefit, but the primary stated goal was to distance itself from the ideals and politics of free software. I agree with you though on the last part. Even as someone who uses the term free software, I often use the term open source while using search engines because searching free software brings up sites with freeware/adware/shareware and stuff I don't want. I also think using loan words like "libre" are a stretch for your general public. At work I tend to use "Free and Open Source Software".