Methodology (open source) vs. ideology (the morals and ethics of software freedom).

Although some see them as opposing forces within a similar frame of interest, I see them as two sides of the same coin, and am deeply passionate about both.

Open-source is free as in beer?

I think Free Software requires any changes to be provided under the original license, while open source just means the source code is available for modification and optional distribution.

Open source (or should I say, the catchphrase open-source) lets you "see" the source code, but not use it. It's more loose than:

Free software (some call it "libre") lets you see and use the source code.

Proprietary does not let you do either.

Some software makers call their software "open-source" when it's really free, and some call their software "free" when it's really just "open".

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I wouldn't agree with "but not use it".

I tend to explain the difference as being that Open Source places the freedom of people first (e.g. with a BSD licence, developers have freedom to do anything with a piece of code) and Free Software places the freedom of software first.

(I don't project any moral judgement of either of these goals, I think they both have their place. Also hi! ;)

That's nonsense. Open source is defined by the Open Source Definition as published by the OSI. http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Read section 3, Derived Works. Putting a source tarball online with a license that says "you can read this source but you can't do anything else with it" doesn't make it open source.

I was talking about the catchphrase "open-source", not what the OSI talks about.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

By that definition SAP is open source! Since you get all the ABAP code and can do whatever you want with it, if you buy SAP first...