Open source just means you have or can get access to the source. FOSS Free open source software also gives you the rights to use the source.
No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
"Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs.
and he definitely doesn't claim that open source is proprietary.
Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache.
With these idiosyncratic restrictions (noncommercial, research only, do no evil, etc) we typically say “disclosed source.”
Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.