But in practical terms, "free software" and "open source software" as used by the FSF and the OSI describe the same set of software. Consider their respective license lists:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
OSI #5-10 are kind of a spelled out form of Freedom 0
OSI #2 maps pretty much directly onto Freedom 1 (The title of OSI #2 just says source code, but the body text specifies more)
OSI #1 is Freedom 2
OSI #3 maps to Freedom 3, with #4 being a clarification of what is allowed.
>Not necessarily.
Perhaps you missed the "qua FOSS"? This is latin for "because it is", in this context "contributing to FOSS because it is FOSS".
the osd guarantees the relevant right for an individual to change the software. if you apreciate this right, then you should work to preserve it.
This is not how anyone I have ever talked to thinks about it. You are probably confusing Free Software[0] with open source software[1]. If you still hold your point we are arguing semantics and stating that your interpretation (a minority interpretation) is right and that most of the software industry and open source community is wrong.
> if you are contributing to FOSS qua FOSS, then you want it to remain FOSS
Not necessarily.
> note further the game theoretic implications: if a minority of projects use CLAs, it is possible to avoid contributing to such projects. If people are willing to contribute to such projects, then their number might expand. Those interested in the continuation of FOSS, which should be anyone, especially those interested in software development, should therefore be interested in not signing CLAs.
You're completely right. Important factor to be aware of as a contributor for sure.
[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1]: https://opensource.org/osd