🚀 go-pugleaf

I've heard that "free software" is inadequate because "free" also has 
the meaning of being without cost and that "open source" is inadequate 
because the source can be viewable without freedom to modify it or 
distribute it.

Why not call it "freed source" ?  I believe "freed" exclusively (or 
nearly so) refers to having been unfettered rather than priced at zero. 
  As for the possible argument that it is a past-tense word: the act of 
freeing it DID take place in the past, whether it happened when at the 
software's inception or afterwards.

This would emphasize that the source code is free as in speech.  It 
would not give the impression that it is (necessarily) free as in beer. 
  It would not really be applicable to unmodifiable, but viewable, source.

I don't intend to start a flame war here (please don't start a "free 
software" vs "open source" debate as it would be off-topic for this 
thread).  Feel free to use the term, not use it, or tell me (in a 
reasonable manner) the problems with the term.  Flames will be ignored. 
  Note: I may not be the first one to have thought of this idea (I have 
heard of "free source" without the "d" as a melding of the two popular 
terms), so please don't yell at me for "stealing" your idea or for 
repeating something that was said years ago.