You're presently illustrating exactly why Stallman et al were such sticklers about "Free Software."

"Open Source" is nebulous. It reasonably works here, for better or worse.

stonemetal12 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>"Open Source" is nebulous

No it isn't it is well defined. The only people who find it "nebulous" are people who want the benefits without upholding the obligations.

https://opensource.org/definition-annotated

▲

whimsicalism 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Free software to me means GPL and associates, so if that is what Stallman was trying to be a stickler for - it worked.

Open source has a well understood meaning, including licenses like MIT and Apache - but not including MIT but only if you make less than $500million dollars, MIT unless you were born on a wednesday, etc.

	▲	whimblepop 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		MIT and Apache are free software licenses in Stallman's sense, and the FSF has always been clear about it.