Open Does Not Mean Free
When people say something like "Open Does Not Mean Free" a lot of casual listeners would assume that free refers to cost and open refers to God knows what....
See, "open" is open to interpretation.
Open door?
Open contact?
US Open?
If by "Free" we mean freedom, that too is so broad that most people would just get battled.
Open? Free? What?
In the context of software, it doesn't get any clearer. There are "open APIs", "free downloads", "freeware", "free trial", and so on.
When someone describes some program as "Open Source" in 2025 (now that the OSI is controlled by Microsoft, even captured by Microsoft staff, it keeps promoting proprietary software, mislabeling it as "open") it's still somewhat unclear what it means. What is "Open Source"? The whole thing? Some portions of it? Does that simply leverage someone else's "Open Source"?
Now that the term "Open Source" is so grossly misused/abused and its enforcer (of the brand/label) is corrupted by an opponent of "Open Source" we would be wiser to ask if some program is freedom-respecting.
Does the entire program come with a licence (and source code) that respects the Four Freedoms and is it feasible for a mediocre computer scientist to compile, modify, and so on? If not, then exercising control over that program is infeasible or very hard.
When people speak about "Open Source" in 2025 it's sort of like calling oneself a "Hippie" in 2025. It's an old label and it probably doesn't mean anything anymore. █
"More Open Than Open [...] I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”
-Microsoft's Jason Matusow, an integral part of the 'Open' XML corruption