Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in allowing user freedom). So...

And yet you're pushing connotations onto it.

"Open source" was meant to be a way to frame the discussion in different terms. Yet by saying that it was "for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom" you sneakily imply motives to the people who coined and promoted the term. Once parsed out, rhetorically it's about as sensible as post-9/11 "they hate us for our freedom" discourse in the US.

> "Open source" was meant to be a way to frame the discussion in different terms.

Yes, and the free software movement's main "terms" are user freedom. So by your own admission, "open source" was coined to de-emphasising user freedom (or rather, framing the discussion around "terms" different than user freedom). It's a matter of public record where the term "Open Source" came from.

"De-emphasizing user freedom" makes it sound like there's an actively freedom-hating agenda at work. That's the connotation it carries. And that's the problem. I could just as easily find ways to imply sinister motives in "free software" -- actively de-emphasizing the ability of programmers to make a living, for example -- but I prefer not to argue that way, y'know?

"Open source", as a term, is about emphasizing a different set of benefits that come from license terms that let anyone run, modify and distribute code for any purpose they choose. The careful way you word your comments to highlight negatives and avoid positives makes it seem obvious that you don't like that and want to make it sound sinister when it isn't. My advice to you would be, if you're going to lie, at least be honest about it!

> actively de-emphasizing the ability of programmers to make a living, for example -- but I prefer not to argue that way, y'know?

Because such an argument would be incorrect (not just a "re-framing", it would be a fundamentally flawed argument). Aside from the naming, free software fundamentally gives users the right to sell software as well.

> The careful way you word your comments to highlight negatives and avoid positives makes it seem obvious that you don't like that and want to make it sound sinister when it isn't.

The positives of "open source" are the same positives as free software. The only difference is the framing, which is a negative IMO. I'm not sure how you'd like me to discuss my issues with "open source" -- should I list the benefits (that are identical to free software) while doing a comparison to free software? Such a comparison would be redundant.

The only tangible benefit of the term "open source" is that it is more friendly to corporations because "free" has two meanings in English. But since it only takes a minute or two to clarify the meaning, I don't see why that should be a priority when the downside is that you don't educate users about the importance of user freedom.

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid.

I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.

> I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular.

Perhaps you should read the site in question rather than guessing.

https://opensource.org/history

> The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code. [..] The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson.

In reply to user misrepresent, who seems to have signed up to HN just to attack RMS:

Wrong.

"Revision 1.29 February 9 1998 esr Changed ``free software'' to ``open source''. "

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...

I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't even mentioned RMS until now. That's a very weird accusation.

While claiming that referencing first-hand sources from both sides of the aisle as a "bullshit argument" isn't attacking anyone, you're not contributing to a healthy discussion.

And yet, if I look at:

    https://archive.org/stream/CathedralAndTheBazaar/cathedral-bazaar_djvu.txt

I see that Eric Raymond used the term on November 18th 1997. Wanna place a bet that I can't find an earlier use than that? Perhaps you shouldn't trust everything you read as definitive...

Well, it looks like I was wrong about the origin of the term. I misread Eric Raymond's changelog, and after a half hour of searching I can't find an earlier use. (I wish there was a usable search for old usenet postings...)

Anything else I said still stands though - including that it's foolish to try and paint everyone with the same brush.