Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was a beautiful comment, but I want to make an important point: > While the Free part of FOSS is being substituted by “(just) open source” and “source available” The OSD is very much compatible with the FSFs list of freedoms. “Source available” is a new name for “shared source” and is fake open source proprietary trash.
You're right. I guess one difference would be the part where the free software tell us "why". But in practical terms, it is too complicated (ethics!), so all is down to copyleft or not, which I believe is what the parent comment was referring to. Perhaps that's what we should be using: copyleft vs open source, instead of free software vs open source.
Unless I misunderstand them, what about using the actual definitions?
- Proprietary software can be closed-source or source-available
- Open-source software can be under a permissive or copyleft license
- Free software is a philosophy around open-source software, but in practice FOSS and OSS are mostly the same thing.