I'm not sure we're even disagreeing at all. The following is of interest for us here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://

I'm not sure we're even disagreeing at all. The following is of interest for us here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... "Open" means what it says on the tin, and the common understanding of "Open" source is along the lines of what the state of Kansas wrote down as cited in the above article: "OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code." RMS even goes on to point out that OSI's definition of "Open" source is fundamentally incompatible with English, which is among the chief reasons for any of this disagreement; quote follows: "But the term 'open source' has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse confusion." Again, "Free" software refers to the question of how the software is licensed for use. "Open" source refers to the question of how the software's source code could be accessed by the people at large. Personally, I find the "F(L)OSS" term redundantly pointless when used in the way most people use it. Free software by its definition already requires that the software be Open source, there is no need to state "Free(/Libre) and Open" unless you want to refer to two distinct categories of software in one breath: Free/Libre software, and Open source software.