Name: The service is released as free software or open-source
Description: The code of the service’s software is licensed under either an open-source or a free software license, so the users can have access to the source code and inspect it for themselves.
Old name and description
Name: The service is open-source
Description: The code of the software is open-source and the users can have access to the source code.
Reasoning
While open source and free software licenses have things in common, I’m of the opinion that they should be differentiated, in fairnes to what each represents at its core.
For example: Yes, code under a free software license (e.g. GNU GPL) is pretty much just as available to inspect as software under a more open source license (e.g. MIT/Apache-2.0). Despite that, there are big differences that should be made clear to the public, as to not get one confused/conflated with the other.
Thoughts? The wording might need improvements, but you should get the gist of what I mean.
One deals with features offered by the service, while the other deals with the service itself, at its core.
Let’s take F-Droid as an example:
F-Droid is an app store, which offers apps that are licensed under a free license. We should clarify that not only the service itself is free software, but also the apps it offers.
Yes, I know it’s free software on its own, but ignore that for this reasoning. Yes, this is a very simplified representation of how F-Droid works, not to mention that I’m cherry-picking for this explanation.
Taking all the objections above into account, the deal here is to differentiate between how the service itself is licensed vs. how the service’s features (which can sometimes be under a different license sometimes).