> When I say “open source”, I mean code licensed in a way that it can be used to build proprietary things. This redefinition of a basic term should have been at the beginning, not the end.
Stallman was right when he said that the Open Source movement would eventually abandon any conceptions of software freedom - it seems to me that we now have a whole generation of "open source" contributors for whom the only type of freedom that matters is the freedom of downstream developers, rather than users, and who seem to think that the role of open source in the world is just to provide a base on top of which one can write proprietary applications. Where do developers of open source end-user applications fit into this picture?