I don't think it is possible to be Open Source without being Free Software, and vice versa. At least I've never seen it done.

> I don't think it is possible to be Open Source without being Free Software, and vice versa.

It is a bit tricky here. Based on the situation, the same software can be some times be open source AND free software, or open source only (ie, not free software).

Eg: Linux kernel. When it is run on your computer, usually it is open source and mostly free-software (linux-libre would be fully free). When it is run on your router, they (vendor) shall give you the source code, but may not allow you to modify it. This is violation of freedom 1 (The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish). Then it won't be a free software, but just open source. You can't even confirm whether the source code they gave corresponds to the binary run in the router.

Atlassian software is Open Source but not Free Software. You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running. The same is true of RHEL, because CentOS is effectively "RHEL without a paid license".

Both Atlassian's "open core" and RHEL are free software.

The difference is that Atlassian sells plenty of proprietary software and add ons too, while the only proprietary software that Red Hat sells comes from recent acquisitions (e.g., Ansible Tower), and it is all in the process of becoming open source.

Red Hat has a great track record for open sourcing software from companies that they acquired.

the term Free software has nothing to do with Money. "Free speech, not Free Beer"

>You can download it, inspect it, and run it... but you need a paid license to keep it running.

Then it is not open source. Open source has a strict definition, from the OSI.

Because that is literally the single and only reason for their existence: to define and protect the Open Source Definition.

(I'm not sure if it's still a Service Mark or not, though it was at one time.)

As I recall, the USPTO declined to grant the registration for the service mark, which was kind of sad for OSI, but they kept going anyway, encouraging people to refer to OSI-certified open source.

The software is free, is it not? Red Hat's business model is subscription based.

The software is free. CentOS is a testament to that.

Redhat's code is Free software, actually. The page you link simply says they don't follow the free software distribution guidelines (and thus are not endorsed by the FSF/GNU project) because they also allow non-free software in their repos.

A better reference for Stallman's view here is probably https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html, which shows why Red Hat's business is probably reasonably described as a free software business (particularly since "the differences in extension of the category [open source] are small").

You're incorrect. Red Hat (and SUSE)'s distributions are free-as-in-freedom software (or at the very least, the majority of the distribution is free -- the link you posted is complaining about a very small minority of the software that is part of such distributions [which is a problem but is not as big of a problem as you claim]).

The fact that you won't get official updates after a trial period (or if your subscription runs out) isn't against the principles of free software. As a user, you still have the source code and have the freedom to maintain the distribution yourself (nobody does, but the freedom is still there).