But the definition itself is fluid, contextual, and subject to change over time.
Although I’m no fanatical Stallmanite (Stallmanist? :), I do see the categorical distinctions clear as day; can’t understand why Open Source people play the willful ignorance card.
Free Software is good for people primarily, while Open Source is good for corporations primarily.
If people ignore FS and promote OS, what does that tell us about their intentions?
Both open source and free software are defined as software that allows you to:
* use the software for any purpose
* examine the source
* distribute the software under the same license terms as you received it
* modify the software in any way
* distribute the software in modified form under the same license terms as you received the original
Stallman's quibble with "open source" is that open source messaging focuses on the business benefits of this kind of software rather than the inherent virtues of free software (and the inherent vices of non-free software). Note also that even to Stallman and the FSF, even BSD- or MIT-licensed works are "free software"; software licenses that forbid redistribution under a different license are called copyleft licenses under the FSF.