You can appreciate the FSF and Stallman without agreeing with everything they say. I think they did a lot to put open source on the map, and make us aware of the dangers with closed source software in certain areas, even if I think that their stance is overzealous.
Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
"Open source" was designed for the sole purpose of being "clever" wordplay and an effective marketing strategy, so you really can't blame fsf on that one.
Words matter. See "pro life" vs "pro choice", see "terrorist" vs "criminal" see "migrant" vs "alleged refuge", etc. etc.
The tech press are mouthpieces for the big corporations, and all of the big corporations do not want free software messing with their profits, so they use and coin words which align with their interests. It's perfectly natural for fsf to use different words.
I'm aware of their thoughts on the distinction between open and free software. However these are (a) lost on most people involved in open source and (b) largely irrelevant as far as the FSF's projects being a large part of GNU/Linux, one of the most widely used open source/free software projects, or their dedication to seeing some key legal questions that affect both open source and free software play out in court.
