Indeed, not all people in favor of lax/permissive licenses are "open source" proponents, because these people might as well shift their views in favor of copyleft licensing depending on how important the project is.
Also, just because a project denotes itself as "open source", this doesn't mean that it follows only the "open source" development model --- nor it means that it follows such ideology, specially considering that I was made aware that people who are not proponents of that methodoly (those that don't follow the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition), have been using this term to do some "openwashing" and ultimately luring people on getting a "premium"/"commercial" edition of some product ([1][2]).
For me, at least, the whole "open source" is "openwashing". ;)
Besides, there are some points which, as far as I know, the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition doesn't address. In particular, it doesn't seem to describe the instance of "open source" in regards to ruinous compromises, digital handcuffs, non-shareable non-functional data, state's technological sovereignty (vs. "technological neutrality"), services as software substitutes, proprietary formats, privacy, democracy, computers for voting, surveillance, education and communication centralization --- these are items which are up to each person to "augment" to their personal view of "open source".
Finally, with the assumption that a term used by a given project isn't enough to immediately qualify it as being in favor of open source or as a project that follows the free/libre software philosophy, then such evaluation is left for those who periodically have contact with the project's development or that are able to study decisions taken by such project. Once again, the evalutor's view of "open source" comes into play.
[1] https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2015-01-15_Bradley-Kuhn_Future-of-Copyleft_LCA-2015.webm.
[2] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/copyleft-for-the-next-decade-a-comprehensive-plan/.
Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org writes:
Hi Adonay,
I would posit though that to the extent there's a difference between two groups (I'm not convinced there are, at least not so distinctly), then the difference is not between whether they use "Free Software" or "Open Source" as a term, but precisely the differences you mention.
It would seem irrefutable there are groups which prefer permissive licensing, and there are groups which prefer copyleft licensing. But it seems divisive and unnecessary to ascribe on those groups some general views of what term they may or may not use.