That's not open source. They make the source available but open source does not restrict what you can do with it other than sometimes requiring that you share the source for your binaries.
>Open source just means you have or can get access to the source.
No, that is "source-code available". "Open source" was defined over 20 years ago by this document and that is still how most software people still use the term: https://opensource.org/osd
RMS has basically single handedly tried to push "Open source can be proprietary, only free software is good" Every other orgs definition has had Open source mean the actual license is open.
"Free software" is also an absolutely awful term because for 99.9% of the population "free" means it didn't cost them any money. This will never change no matter how hard RMS tries because its a very common and understood word.
>Open source implies nearly unlimited rights for the developer, like BSD, MIT, or Apache.
Wrong: the GPL for example is defined as open-source by the Open Source Initiative (source: https://opensource.org/licenses) -- a fact that has not changed since the coining of the term "open source" over 20 years ago.
> FOSS implies restrictions on the developer in the service of end-user freedom
No it doesn't. You're thinking of copyleft licenses. FOSS is not synonymous with copyleft; many FOSS licenses (recognized as such by RMS and the FSF) are not copyleft.
Whoa, you’re right. I definitely remember reading a tirade against permissive licenses that I thought was FSF’s position, but I see they do explicitly recognize permissive licenses as Free Software.
Thats RMS's fringe definition of OS but the widely accepted OSI definition is that open source software does not restrict your rights to commercial use.
