> step one: shift the focus from free software (liberty minded software) on to "open source" software. i.e. software which you can look but not touch I’m prett

> step one: shift the focus from free software (liberty minded software) on to "open source" software. i.e. software which you can look but not touch I’m pretty sure when you say “look but not touch,” you’re talking about project governance, where outside contributors have limited input into the direction of the project. If that’s the case, I don’t like this conflation of governance and “freedom”. Google’s open source software is free software by all definitions (including FSF). For a project to be open source or free software, users need to have the “four essential freedoms”. The ability to get your changes merged upstream is not one of those freedoms. It is totally valid to criticize the corporate governance model of open source software. But it’s best not to confuse our already overloaded definitions by saying that corporate software with a free license isn’t really “free.”