> [Open Source] was created so those who didn't like GPLed and similarly licensed software could easily talk about lightly licensed software (eg: BSD). I'm afr

> [Open Source] was created so those who didn't like GPLed and similarly licensed software could easily talk about lightly licensed software (eg: BSD). I'm afraid that's incorrect. The moniker "open source" was coined in working group leading up to the formation of the Open Source Initiative, as a rebranding of Free Software to industry, around the time of Netscape's software release. OSI published an "Open Source Definition" based directly on Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which explicitly set out to describe both permissive terms like BSD and copyleft terms like GPLv2. The OSD doesn't have an "Example Licenses" section, but DFSG still does: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2017/11/12/DFSG-versus-OSD.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2017/11/12/DFSG-versus-OSD.ht... Folks do commonly distinguish BSD- and GPL-style licenses, as you imply. The most popular lingo says "permissive" contra "copyleft". Lawrence Rosen's book popularized "academic" versus "reciprocal". We could also say "BSD school" and "FSF school".