* the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense

* "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s

* liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available

* there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source"

* consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it

* there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain

I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".

No ... no they are not

>>despite the philosophical differences.

And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible

GPL, only enforces redistribution of software you distribute, "to" the people you desteibute it to, aka customers.

Most other licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc) don't require any code redistribution (though some require attribution).

GPL ~= redistribution to customers Other ~= no redistribution

Red Hat is complying with the GPL requirements even for BSD, Apache, and BSD licensed code, which I think is good.

I think a more sinister trend forming is around open core, and essentially proprietary code mixed with no code redistribution at all. This makes open core essentially closed source for all intents and purposes. Companies are using open core simply for free marketing and to drive technology adoption in the sales/marketing funnels.