Quoting Hendrik Boom (hendrik@???):

> Just to be clear, that's the point of open source *as* *originally*
> *envisaged*. Unfortunately, I believe there has been a campaign to
> devalue the meaning of open source to mean any software fro which the
> user gets the source code, whether there is a free licence or not.

Not a new campaign. Same old.

(And, by the way, I should have said that the essence of open source is
'the right to fork, accompanied by the means to do so, _and_ to use it for
any purpose without fee'. Sorry about omitting that last bit.)

Those of us who participate on, for example, OSI's license-discuss and
license-review mailing lists get continually barraged with assertions
that OSI has no legitimate right to control the meaning of 'open source'
in the context of software, and that is invariably followed by flimsy
and illogical bullshit reasoning that _just happens_ to serve the
commercial interests of some pushy little company or coder.

> I have started using the ugly phrase free/libre software. Just for
> clarity.

{shrug} Whatever you will.

I just say 'open source', and when (inevitably) someone shows up to say
'What about free software?', reply 'These are two marketing concepts for
exactly the same thing', and ignore all the subsequent denials and
(irrelevant) advocacy noise that ensues.