It's mainly the price nowadaysm eg, Google and M$ have the biggest FOSS catalogues out there, doft full with their tracking APIs, GitHub is owned by M$, even Facebook develope a lot of FOSS, same Amazon and other big corporations. Yes, feedom that everybody can use this products, same as also Freeware, proprietary or not. Freedom has nothing to do with this. The only freedom a normal user have is that he can fork FOSS, but only if he have the needed skills, if not, he have to trust the author and his intentions. Are you capable to audit a big complex soft and to fork and maintan it to your like? In this case, congrats.

We currently see the trust of FOSS in Firefox from Mozilla, turning in an advertising company, we see it in Brave sharing data with fishy crypto companies. FOSS distributed with dozends of different licenses, more o less restrictives and even copyrights. The current definition of FOSS is turning in pretty debatable and certainly has to do very few with Freedom nor romanticism.

Competition and market are the ones that put the rules, everything else is heavenly music. only valid for some indie apps from particular devs.

FOSS is free and open source software, which is free to use and it's source code is disclosed and allowed to used to variable extend, often (definitely not always) owned by private people or non profit organizations. "Just" freeware is usually used for proprietory software, which is free to use, but undisclosed source, so nobody can look under the hood and see what it actually does.

Non freeware FOSS don't exist, FOSS - Free Open Source Soft, is always free, but there are non freeware OpenSource apps, like eg. Proton VPN, which is OpenSource but not Freeware, only Freemium (server cost money), or also Filen, it's also only Freemium OpenSource, if you need more than 10GB storage, you have to pay for it. There are also paid OpenSource apps without free version.

I use ardour all the time. the 1$ a month is well worth it imo

I've read the first part and it's all "most often", "may be", so, technically, FOSS software is under the freeware umbrella.

Unlike with free and open-source software, which are also often distributed free of charge, the source code for freeware is typically not made available.

It clearly says "typically", which includes the software that does open source the code.

Interesting. I interpreted this definition more like an oval vs. circle distinction. The vast majority of ovals aren’t circles, but circles are a subset of ovals.

Interesting, didn't know that. Ironically, I've unintentionally followed this definition anyway because I think open-source is so incredible that I always describe FOSS as specifically FOSS, not "just" freeware.

In fact, I've pivoted so strongly to FOSS as of late that I haven't even said the word "freeware" in... years... dang...