The "open core" section has problems and is not sufficient.

[ian-kelling]

First, its missing things: See the section of "Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

I wouldn't like to see this guide encouraging Canada to buy tivoized devices they have no freedom over, then being beholden to a vendor just as if it was proprietary.

Also, a wider issue than "open core" is software which claims to be open source but simply isn't. "Verify Open Source Software Licence" is simply too vague about how to check licenses, and will lead to using proprietary software. For example, did you know that Ubuntu, arguably the most popular GNU/Linux based OS has harcoded requirement to download and and run nonfree software for all versions which include linux (the kernel) and run on amd or intel processors: https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/intel-microcode https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/amd64-microcode . Whereas Trisquel, or Debian, does not have this requirement. According the guide "A solution that is built with open source software but requires the use of closed-source components should not be considered open source software for the purpose of this guide", but I bet most people actually using the guide would not figure out that ubuntu on intel or amd processors "should not be considered open source for the purpose of this guide."

In the majority of issues I've seen, the software claims to be "open source", but is not fully free, doesn't happen when software claims only to be "free software." (as in freedom). In any revision which tries to help people better identify "open source", I suggest that they should prefer software that calls itself "free software", as I only see the term "open source" becoming more and more misused and not actually providing freedom in practice. For example, note the front page of ubuntu.com "Ubuntu is an open source software operating system", and the front page of debian.org: "Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer", where free links to a definition of free software. As an extremely practical matter, preferring software which claims to be free software, will actually lead to more "open source."

[gcharest]

Thanks for the feedback! We'll try to make clearer the intent here.

We do want to open up the whole spectrum of tools available for us and we have to understand we are still going to be buying proprietary software as part of our regular processes as well as using software that are not considered free as in freedom. Managing it all will be a reality.

This is not to say we don't prefer the latter, simply meaning that we work under certain regulations and

[gcharest]

And I see I don't complete my sentences 🤔

Meant to say we will have to comply to laws, regulations but will influence departments towards leveraging free and open source software as part of the toolkit.