"Jesse Phillips" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > So it basically needs to be free in all senses of the word. I disagree > but many others seem to hold this view. I don't know why they don't just > call it "free software."
IIRC, Once upon a time, it was like that. "Open source" meant "source is available at no cost". "Free-as-in-freedom software" meant "A superset of 'open-source', plus other freedoms such as redistro." I think a lot of the people that got into the Linux/OSS/Slashdot/etc scenes in the last few years never actually learned the difference and thus go running around equating "open source" with GPL/zlib/BSD/etc.
