> There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. Isn't it the case that (a) there could be / are open source projects with extremely re

> There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing. Isn't it the case that (a) there could be / are open source projects with extremely restrictive licensing which totally prevents all distribution. I.e. a "copyright": you can still read and run the software and modify it for yourself, as long as you don't distribute it, and (b) such a project could never be "free" sensu Stallman?