Re: Should we talk about "open source" hardware?

[Valentino Giudice]

> From what you said, that's exactly true.  Code - OSS carries a weak
> license (tell me if I'm wrong), and Visual Studio Code is a nonfree
> executable which incorporates the code of Code - OSS and puts
> on other nonfree conditions.

It is correct that Code - OSS carries a weak (free) license.
It's also correct that Visual Studio Code incorporates the code of Code - OSS.
But Visual Studio Code also includes source code other than that in
Code - OSS. Quoting them:
> Most customizations are done through the customization of product.json, but 
> we do include a small amount of additional code and assets in the final 
> product.

So describing the two as the same program isn't correct.

The following sentence is:
> If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they qualify 
> as open source but not as free software.

Visual Studio Code is not an example of this, because the executables
do not fully correspond to the released sources.

One of the differences between Code - OSS and Visual Studio Code is:
> Parts of the code to negotiate a connection to the Visual Studio Code server 
> are proprietary.

So Visual Studio Code clearly contains at least some proprietary components.

I am also curious about the basis of the claim that binaries under a
proprietary license would count as open source if the source code is
available under a free license.
OSI seems to treat this as a non-question, since it only applies the
term "open source" to source code. Visual Studio Code does not claim
to be open source.
I'd also like to point out that a weak license isn't needed for this
(as long as there aren't contributors, or a CLA is used), but that is
besides the point.