I was around for those arguments in the 90s as well, and that's not at all my take on it. The FSF was always very clear that the BSD-type licenses (at least on

I was around for those arguments in the 90s as well, and that's not at all my take on it. The FSF was always very clear that the BSD-type licenses (at least once the minor issue of the "advertising clause" was dealt with) were Free Software licenses in their opinion. The Debian Free Software Guidelines always covered a wide variety of permissive "open source" licenses, and in fact the DFSG was used as the basis of the OSI's Open Source definition. So I've never seen Open Source as a superset of Free Software - or vice-versa. Rather, they have always been almost or even exactly the same set. It's not, and never has been, about alternative taxa - instead, the difference was always more one of marketing. It's not a question of What - it's a question of Why. The Why of Free Software is "So that people are free to share and modify the software they use", and the Why of Open Source is "Because this method of development creates better software.". If a new movement does crystallise, it will be because neither of these Whys satisfy the new constituency, and their new answer to Why Permissively License Your Software? will be their rallying point.