Trisquel 6.0 review in DistroWatch Weekly

I forgot to mention the second part of my reply:
Pretending that Trisquel is open source is disrespecting the project. Just try to tell quidam (Trisquel's project leader) that he is developing an "open source" distribution and see his reaction: https://trisquel.info/contact

It would actually be very nice if quidam in person would write to Jesse: jessefrgsmith-at-yahoo-dot-ca

It feels really good to know that there are people who can't stand such articles, too.

I argued some month ago with an author who insisted on the term "linux" for the operating system. Couldn't convince him to use gnu/linux and it really got on my nerves.

Thanks Magic Banana, I too also commented on Mr. Smith's apparent confusion between free vs open source software and Trisquel.

Regards

The most common term for this type of software is Open Source since it is the most popular term for FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) and the term Free Software is confusing to average joe. The uninitiated associates it with the price definition and not freedom. The Open Source definition is more straight forward as it clearly states open source code.

If the code is "open source" under a GPL, Apache, MIT, or the BSD licenses, then it is Free Software as well. The freedoms you gain are the same regardless if you use one of the terms.

I will be honest though... if you are trying to gain SEO for your project or you are describing your software to another developer (like a Windows or OSX one), they are more likely to know what Open Source is than Free Software. They may think its freeware.

Generally speaking, one situation in which I think it might be a good idea to use to term "open source" (and talk about such a point-of-view or perspective) is when, possibly, describing a proposed piece of software to company managers, executives and yuppies - who (as convicted capitalists) might find the term "free" too subversive. (And to which one should avoid mentioning the fact that the software is free to share with other people - since, they'll probably think they'll be "suckers" to allow such a thing.)

Other than that, I agree with RMS, that it misses the point to use the term "open source". And I also (very much) think that the wide adoption of such a term is an attempt by the establishment to (exactly) make people miss the point, and deviate such people from the ideals of *Freedom*.

(Like Ubuntu does, already - describing the software in its repositories as "free", as in "gratis", and then differentiating such software between "open source" and "proprietary".)

However, I don't feel the need to correct the author of the mentioned article. Since, he uses both terms. Using the term "open", when talking about the open nature of the software, and the term "free", when talking about the philosophy behind it. Finishing, even, saying that: "I was able to get through the week, being productive, with a 100% free software operating system. People who are interested in sticking firmly to the free software philosophy will probably have the best experience possible with Trisquel."

And, also because (for the sake of rhetoric, and although I understand that others might think - some, very much - differently) I am not, however, a "purist" to the point of condemning, or wanting to correct, someone for using the term "open" when such a person (honestly) just wants to stress, or point, out - /call the attention to - (only) the open nature of Free Software. Since that, the term "Free Software" encompasses much more than that. And, might not be the best (precise) way to describe something, when one is only talking about the nature of the software itself.

For shits and gigs, I was looking at the JavaScript libraries at http://www.cdnjs.com and noticed that the majority of them use the MIT License, which according to the FSF, isn't really a clearly defined license. Is it the Expat License or the X11 one? Its just "The MIT License" according to the OSI and http://mit-license.org