Not to beat a dead horse, but maybe there's life there still (as evidenced by a reader comment [1] on a post from yesterday about the erosion of the meaning [2] of the term "open source").
 
I have a pet peeve - the uses of, and the differences between the terms "free software" and "open source software". Keep in mind that in other languages (like French), the word for "free" (as in no cost) and "free" (as in freedom) are different. Not so in English, and this has caused more confusion than we really need.

I wrote about why "open source" is more descriptive and useful than "free" [3] about a year ago after overhearing a conversation at the Mozilla booth at LinuxWorld in San Francisco. Two guys expressed disappointment that the Mozilla t-shirts were for sale, and walked away. Are you kidding me? It's not enough that the source code is freely available for modification, it's not even enough that it's available at no cost, but you want the t-shirt for free too? An unrealistic freebie mentality has encouraged (mostly technical) users to believe that open source is available at no cost. This leads them to advocate for open source software at work in a way that does not seem feasible to management, rightly so. Let's just call it open source and avoid the confusion.

This is certainly the stuff of controversy, expecially among the old timers in the open source world. It's time to move on, however, and present open source software in a light that is more realistic and practical to technical management. "Free" implies no cost, and it's just the wrong message to send.