Re:Open Source means you get the code, that's it (Score 0, Redundant)

Except that you don't get to define what open source means. The Open Source Initiative has that luxury. IIRC, they went to great lengths to differentiate Open Source and Free Software as two distinct entities. Open Source means you get the code and nothing more. No guarantee that you can redistribute

Please RTFM. If you're going to have an opinion, make it an informed one. From the OSI's website, this is taken from Clause 2 of the Open Source Definition:

"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

Note that the Open Source Definition also requires that distribution of modifications in source form must be allowed.

No, the real difference between Open Source advocates and Free Software advocates is on a philosophical level. Open Source advocates proclaim that as a software development methodology, open source offers advantages in certain contexts. No overarching moral claim is made about the software, its developers, or its consumers. Free Software advocates tend to agree with the methodological point, but go further in pronouncing that there is some sort of basic right to source code that people have. This is a moral claim, and hence not something that can be resolved as a matter of fact. You either subscribe to that moral view of the world, or you don't. Most businesses do not subscribe to that view of the world, and most open source advocates remain agnostic. Thus Open Source tends to be a more business-friendly view of the world than Free Software.