> No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my comment that I don't (by de

> No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter than Open-Source. I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my comment that I don't (by default) include the 'binary virality' a-la GPL in my strictest interpretation, but some certainly do. Strictest interpretation meaning here as in 'the bare minimum to qualify', not the one maximizing 'restrictions'. Again here not everyone agrees on even the term 'restriction' here, some would consider the binary source requirement of GPL a restriction, and others would consider it a restriction if they can't see the source of the binary program they're running. > Free Software projects following the requirements of the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's completely orthogonal. I never intended to claim that. My claim is that I (and many others) would consider accepting contributions based on merit as part of open-source. Maybe my above comment was unnecessarily encroaching on the topic of whether something like the MIT license is "free" or "libre". Ultimately I think it's orthogonal to what my main point was, and I apologize if I misused any definition myself.