> [The FreeBSD license] is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs.

> However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values.

> The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice.

> By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles.

> This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.

	▲	ksec 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It is great that you post and quoted this. In which I suggest you reread the page yourself. It make the case very clear. There are literally 4 - 5 paragraphs on the whole thing with examples what is considered free software. Directly from RMS himself. >Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses[1]. There are many free software licenses* aside from the GNU GPL. * And in [1], >Modified BSD license (#ModifiedBSD) This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. >This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license. I actually originally asked on what you were suggesting because the idea that BSD is not Free software died a more than decade ago. That is the whole reason why Stallman wrote the page and even mentioned Rust as an example. Along with issues came up from Tivo etc. I am surprised it is now rising up again. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html