"Free" is also ambiguous in English, even more than "open". I suppose "libre" is explicit but also not an actual common word.
"Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses).
"Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science).
I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.
> "Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science).
That meaning predates the use of "open" to describe software, hence why "open source" isn't that great of a term for something truly new. It co-opts the much older term "open source" which means freely available through non-protected sources. Like, in the intelligence services "open sources" has meant non-classified, non-restricted sources. There's a similar meaning in journalism.
"Open" is clear, widely accepted by the community including businesses, and is defended by the Open Source Initiative (think of them what you will, they do a good job of keeping that definition true, by doing things such as approving licenses).
"Open" has also been extended to other areas, such as "open science" (which does not refer to science for which a paper is available, but to actual reusable science).
I don't see any problem with "open", other than the fact RMS doesn't like it.