Clarity. Personally we treat “open source” and “free software” (in the FOSS sense) as synonyms, and “free software” could easily be used (by someone who doesn’t know FOSS context) for something that’s just not paid.
So saying “open source” makes it clear that it’s /actually open source/ and not just “not paid”.
Title is inaccurate, it was not released as open source software, it was released as Free software. This shit’s GPL3!
GPL3 might not be the most permissive license out there, but it is an open source license.
Right, but then why describe it as the lesser thing?
Clarity. Personally we treat “open source” and “free software” (in the FOSS sense) as synonyms, and “free software” could easily be used (by someone who doesn’t know FOSS context) for something that’s just not paid.
So saying “open source” makes it clear that it’s /actually open source/ and not just “not paid”.
Say libre then.
That makes sense for FOSSheads, but regular people might not get it!
(also fun bonus of calling stuff open source: it annoys the “permissive licenses aren’t REALLY FREE!!” people. :3)
Well they need to learn, and if they refuse, we put them in the FOSS reeducation camp!