Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did. We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us. These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as 'open source companies,' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it. This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using the term 'free software.' But companies do not seem to use the term 'free software' that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem unsuitable. The term 'open source' opened the door for this.
More from Richard M. Stallman
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that the typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think that 'Open Source comp…
Permalink to quote #59 Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job--it needs your help. That's why we stick to the term 'free software' in the GNU Project, so we can help do that job.…
Permalink to quote #61 To stop using the word 'free' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom. If those using the term 'open source' draw more users into ou…
Permalink to quote #58