> Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software movement. This is the end of one paragraph.

> Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software movement. This is the end of one paragraph. So...from whom is the curtain "hiding" these ideas? It must be from the audience for the conferences that have the word "open" in them. That means that a substantial part of the audience does not consist of "open source advocates." At least not in the sense of people who heard the open source vs. free software debate and knowingly chose against free software. If that were the case, then RMS wouldn't be talking about the curtain "hiding" anything-- rather he'd be talking about "open" conferences merely serving the desires of people who know about free software but don't agree with it and instead chose open source. Therefore-- one would think-- it's in the best interest of free software advocates to attend such conferences and communicate their message clearly and effectively to the substantial part of the audience who doesn't know about free software. Who knows-- they could even play a prank by redefining open source to its literal meaning, then explaining it as a subset of the free software development process. That would put the onus on open source advocates to argue against open source as a subset of free software. But to do that they'd have to reference the very features of free software they wanted to ignore! I think there was once a word for such playful cleverness... Anyhow, on to the beginning of the next paragraph: > Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an activity that calls itself “open.” Hm, I can't seem to remember the word for that "playful cleverness." Well, it was from a long, long time ago... Edit: clarification