> With an open license, a project only needs to reach "critical mass" in order 

Minor nit pick but an 'open' license doesnt prevent people from stealing 
things away.  For sometime IBM gave source code to those that purchased 
their hardware/software, just as Microsoft gives source now to certain 
partners under its 'shared source' agreements.

With out explicit freedoms that allow you to 'modify' and/or 'distribute' 
the source code you are just as powerless as a proprietary software 
customer, even though you are perhaps more informed (in that you can see 
the code)  

I simply point this out because one can have the source code to an 
application but without the freedom it means nothing they are still 
chained as a slave to the distributor.  So that means that because 
something is Open one can not deduce automatically that there is freedom 
associated with it.  However, by stating something is Free Software you 
can reasonable deduce that if you have the freedom to modify/distribute 
that you indeed must have the right to see it. :)

-Derek