> this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"

I'd strongly disagree with that too.

> Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved.

Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".

You may disagree with me of course, but this kind of understanding of OSS is very very common. Most people, even software developers do not even know there is a difference between free and open source software. And as I have suggested before in another comment: Consciously check the licenses of the next 10-20 repos (or more, if you have time or motivation), which are labeled "open source" and you will very quickly see what many people think open source license to mean. I'd love for it to not be so, surely. I would like to discover, that I have, mostly dealt with a niche group of software developers, and that the broad majority in fact knows the differences. I have a hunch though, that this is not the case, as I always check the licenses of repos and almost always see MIT or BSD when its label is "open source". This is my experience on an almost daily basis on the job, but if you have good sources, please link them to me, to prove me wrong about this.

As for the second part: Time for first hand source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

(quote start)

"“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”

We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms."

(quote end)

People intentionally making free software do not see themselves as merely open source software making. They do not wish to be mislabeled. Is that not enough for you? I mean, what more do you need, for me to convince you, that this subset-superset-structure, you are proposing, is not according to the definition of what free software is?

Now I don't know in what circles you work, but I suggest, that the people take another look at the definitions and begin distinguishing, if they have any interest in using the correct terms. Why is that important? Well, another quote from the same page:

(quote start)

Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't.

(quote end)

Thank you for now engaging in an actual discussion about the subject and bringing arguments.

"check the licenses of the next 10-20 repos (or more, if you have time or motivation), which are labeled "open source" and you will very quickly see what many people think open source license to mean."

That proves no such thing.

You might as well say "check the programming language used on the next 10 or 20 repositories and you will very quickly see what many people think open source programming language to mean."

I only ever licence my own stuff as gpl or the closest cc analog for projects with a physical component, and in almost all conversations, with people in and out of any IT related field or hobby, I call it all open source.

The special meanings for "open source" and "free" are definitions a very few people have come up with as a way to give a label to a distinction which exists so that they can deal with that distinction, but no one I know ever uses those terms in that way in any ordinary conversation or even writings. Even professional writers writing news articls, most frequently use the term open source to apply to anything that isn't closed source. Even they might only say "free" to mean without monetary cost.

The special definitions are almost like a document-local definition. They aren't even jargon. Meaning, you can't even say that everyone in a given field means those definitions when they say those words. The set for which that assumption would be true or at least plausible is only everyone in one or two organizations.

There's nothing incorrect or even controversial about what you're saying. It could be your tone, but I suspect that if you share these opinions during peak west coast hours, e.g. 10am - 7pm pacific time, you're likely to get more upvotes and a more receptive response.

There is an odd pattern I've observed where my opinionated comments get a lot of upvotes during the day and evening, and then I wake up the next day to find they've been nearly reversed overnight. There's some kind of ideological split in the the US tech scene and the rest of the world.

Huh, interesting observation, will keep that in mind, thank you.

Basically people build their own bubbles everywhere. If you are the one to poke it, you better prepare for the backlash, I learn once more.

I had a hunch initially though, that I would get downvoted for the attempt to distinguish between free and open source though, just like the previous times. However, if I start to self-censor, just because of downvotes, ... imagine if everyone did that. Opinions would go unheard. It is a bad trend. People need to speak up and voice their opinions.

I have also noticed, that if one makes a comment, that is purely positive about something, you are much more likely to get upvoted, but as soon as you criticize anything, you run the risk of being massively downvoted ("Please stay positive!"), especially when it is about open source vs free software or when it is about javascript. Perhaps these populations are just bigger and more people will take offense or they are especially touchy about having something criticized.

Anyway, I should not care too much about random downvotes on HN. There are more productive ways to spend my day.

I think anyone would be massively downvoted and flagged whatever the subject, if they talk like you have on this page, going on about how and why you're being downvoted and how people are idiots who should read your noble words more carefully etc. For example

> Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true? ... Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place? ... Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? ... It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. ... Basically people build their own bubbles everywhere. If you are the one to poke it, you better prepare for the backlash, I learn once more.

All this adds less than nothing to HN, breaks the guidelines in several ways, and everyone is the poorer for having read them. Aside from the unbearable, self-important whining and pouting, it's not so much what you said as how you say it. It seems common to then create a conspiracy theory where it's all about the what, where downvotes somehow just go to show the writer was right. Even if you were 100% right on this page and everyone else 100% wrong, that's no excuse at all to write as you have. And if you are trying to persuade, ranting at people like that seems the worst possible way.