The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "

The following things are all true: * the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense * "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s * liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available * there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source" * consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it * there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".