[juliangmp]

Emphasis on the freedom, especially the freedom to use by anyone for any purpose.

If it took some people in the FOSS space this long that it also includes people, companies or purposes they disagree with, then I don't know what to tell them.

[duskdozer]

That's just one interpretation of freedom.

[breezykoi]

You are correct but in the context of free software, the FSF has been explicit about this ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose"). Publishing software under a FOSS license imply that you agree with this definition of freedom.

[juliangmp]

Have you actually read one a Free/Open-Source license? Like for example the MIT[1] license:

  Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software [...] to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...]

Or the FSF's definition[2] of Free Software

  The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Or the OSI's definition[3] of open source.

  5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
  6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

It's almost as if this concept is at the very core of FOSS.

[1]: https://mit-license.org/ [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms [3]: https://opensource.org/osd

[pixl97]

I mean, not really...

That's like saying "I have the freedom to kill you".

Saying that you can create something, then you reserve the 'freedom' to limit what everyone else does for it really doesn't fall under the word freedom at all.