Are not free and open source exactly the same? Opening the source gives you the four freedoms. It's both necessary and sufficient. The objection is that it's not philosophically explicit enough, not enough about the user, watered-down somehow? To me it seems like an only slightly different emphasis - on openness rather than freedom - which are in fact the same concept, just looked at from different angles. And the openness is obviously for the user just like the freedom is. Seems like a weird place to have a sticking point. It's just People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front - an argument for jackoffs.
Remember when people presented an alternative to black lives matter and started to call it human lives matter? Emphasis sometimes matters a lot and people get upset when people intend to steer a movement away from the core issue for why it was created. It might look like a People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front, but open source was created with the intention to steer focus away from the freedom ideology, just like how people say that human lives matter is just a name that people use to steer emphasis away from African Americans that get killed.
Interesing & very "gettable" analogy. In fact it's so apt, that it captures the feature most salient to me in all 3 examples: By insisting on things that, in the eyes of their more powerful adversaries, are minor or insignificant differences, they squander goodwill, make enemies out of allies, and make the movement weaker (or fail to make it stronger). It's a political blunder. In the case of the JPF/PFJ against the Romans it's obviously comic, but in the other two cases it's kind of tragic. BLM alienates a certain number of white people who aren't racists and want to work with them toward reform. Stallman maybe alienates a certain number of "open sourcers" who actually share most of his values & principles, certainly more than 1995 Bill Gates or 2001 Steve Ballmer did, let's say!
So yeah I might do that part differently if I were Stallman or in charge of BLM. Although I suppose in neither case is there really anybody truly "in charge," which at least in my experience with FOSS I always thought was the beauty of it. (That's another thing too, how can you "co-opt" something nobody owns?)
At some point you have to get shit done. Granted I'm advancing a position right now that leads to all sorts of compromise (in the one sense but also unfortunately in the other sense) and slippery-slope-ism and lesser-of-two-evils-ism. But somewhere I heard the saying, "There's nothing more useless than an unelected liberal." In other words the purity of your ideas does nobody any good if your hands aren't on the levers of power. Hi Hillary! (HRC disclaimers apply; see store for details.) That saying comes from the hierarchical model, obviously, but to translate it into a 'community movement' paradigm, power is simply the number of people participating. If you chop that in half, you chop everybody's power in half.
It is not exactly same, although it is similar, and most thing that is one is also other; is best if it is both free software and open source. Is not only the emphasis which differs. Open source has more specific requirements, although still sometimes they don't work; that is why you should need to be both at once. For example, GNU GPL is both a valid free software license and is also a valid open source license, so is good.
