i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “ope

i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”: Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files." i wouldn't call Stephenson's confusion here a rare occurrence; "Source available" hasn't really caught on, but instead open source remains ambiguous