I'm aware React is MIT and of the various licenses etc.
As I see it commonly defined, "open source software", FOSS, and FLOSS all mean the same thing more or less. That the project uses an OSI approved license, or one very close to it, whether it's MIT, Apache2, or GPL.
"Free software" is the only of the phrases that I see having two competing common definitions, the "free as in money", and "free as in Free Software Foundation's definition of free software". This seems pretty understandable, since "free" is overloaded.
I only infrequently see people mixing up "open source" and "source available", and that's the specific thing I'm trying to discourage people from mixing up. I think keeping those terms clear, and especially calling out "source available" software as _not_ being "open source" (i.e. not granting you the freedom to modify it or run your own copy in some cases) is important.
I see the opposite often argued too - that open-source is too wide a term as could also be understood as source available, and that FOSS/FLOSS should be preffered. But you're right, looking at most literature, most people seem to refer to oss and foss to be largely the same thing. I guess my biases are showing lol
Coming back to the original argument - which was that React was not truly open-source - being MIT, it 100% is, so I still don't understand it. That they prioritize their own needs for feature development is pretty much irrelevant, the source is there and you have permission to fork, tweak and publish changes on your own at any time. You legally are in your own right, but they don't have to make it easy on you.
As I see it commonly defined, "open source software", FOSS, and FLOSS all mean the same thing more or less. That the project uses an OSI approved license, or one very close to it, whether it's MIT, Apache2, or GPL.
"Free software" is the only of the phrases that I see having two competing common definitions, the "free as in money", and "free as in Free Software Foundation's definition of free software". This seems pretty understandable, since "free" is overloaded.
I only infrequently see people mixing up "open source" and "source available", and that's the specific thing I'm trying to discourage people from mixing up. I think keeping those terms clear, and especially calling out "source available" software as _not_ being "open source" (i.e. not granting you the freedom to modify it or run your own copy in some cases) is important.