I don't believe even Richard Stallman would actually say that Emacs does not fit the definition of open source software. Rather, his position is that he supports his program as Free Software because the open source software movement is not about the principles that he supports.
In other words if you asked Richard Stallman if he would characterize Emacs as open source software, his reply would be "No, it's Free Software." However, if you asked Richard Stallman if Emacs was technically open source he would say, "Yes, technically, but it would be more accurate to call it Free Software."
This article brings me back to having to deal with other people's Web pages which they made with a WYSIWYG editor. FrontPage's procedurally generated HTML code was truly frightening to behold. Both Dreamweaver and Netscape Composer (later replaced by Mozilla Composer, which became Seamonkey Composer) generated much cleaner code (I mostly dealt with Mozilla Composer code, but I seem to remember even the original Netscape Composer's code being much better than that from FrontPage).
I never understood the attraction to FrontPage because both DreamWeaver and Composer were easier to use, and while Composer was mostly about being easy, DreamWeaver was also more powerful than FrontPage. I guess it was just the Microsoft name that got people using FrontPage.
I don't believe even Richard Stallman would actually say that Emacs does not fit the definition of open source software. Rather, his position is that he supports his program as Free Software because the open source software movement is not about the principles that he supports.
In other words if you asked Richard Stallman if he would characterize Emacs as open source software, his reply would be "No, it's Free Software." However, if you asked Richard Stallman if Emacs was technically open source he would say, "Yes, technically, but it would be more accurate to call it Free Software."