Politically the group of people that started the term "open source" had their issues, I would rather say they were corrupt as they accommodated the issues of corporations, not the issue of freedom. There is nothng wrong to promote freedom. And then, over the years, we could see corporations abusing the "open source" terminology to push again the software that controls the user and not giving freedom to the user to control software and hyr computing.
Paradoxically, the term "open source" became popular during during the adoption of Netscape Public License: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-sour … _as_a_term which was then disapproved by OSI, and approved by FSF. Funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Public_License
We are here in business of free software. This term was not dilluted over the time, and has its direction, clear meaning, and is easier conveyed to public.
Compare it to "open source" which is vague, and which relates not only to software, but to electronics, food, beverages, digital content, medicine, science, engineering, robotics, transport, fashion, religion, journalism, and so on and so on, and nothing of it makes the freedom issues more clear.
So we get products which are maybe "open" but not free as in freedom.
We get products that may appear to be free but are not free.
And we get the culture without sharing.
That it is so, the article here will clearly show intentions of "open source": https://opensource.com/business/16/11/o … e-software
where it says that freedom is not the target, it is target to achieve higher efficiency and agility in creating software products and services.
So if freedom is not their main goal, why would Hyperbola as fully free, relating to freedom, support that political term "open source"?!
Without the "enforced sharing" as written in that article, there would be no Linux kernel today. Linux kernel was initially written as proprietary software, with or without source publicly available, but it was proprietary. Torvalds have licensed it under the GNU GPL once he has seen Dr. Stallman talking in his university in Finland.
At that time it was not free software, even though the source code was available.
One may see in this article that not the freedom but vendors are preferred:
https://opensource.com/business/16/11/o … e-software
where it says:
"The point of free software was to undermine the existing order of proprietary Unix vendors and enforce principles of sharing."
and where it says:
"Open source processes could give vendors a competitive advantage, if used properly, and open source principles could allow projects to function more efficiently."
so is the software all about vendors? And helping vendors?
Obviously, clearly, one can see that "open source" political movement has different goals than those people of free software community.
Distinction is helpful, while we are both using each other resources to strive towards our different goals.
And we teach people about free software and sharing and helping others to share with others.