Just as others take the word "free" in free software literally, you are taking "open source" literally.
That in essence captures the whole debate.
I think that the common man can get confused by both "open source" and "free software" and each of the supporting groups are trying to address it in their own ways.
I see validity in both the terms, however FSF wants to talks about "free as in freedom" and thinks that "free software" is more appropriate and less prone to misuse than "open source", as the last few years have shown.
There are precendents for using "free" to mean freedom, as in "free people, free country".
FSF uses "free" because it wants to bring "freedom of software" to the notice of people. The people who use "open source" typically tend to give less importance to freedom. e.g. Misinterpreting Copyright by Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html In which RMS lays out the case for copyrights of shorter length etc..
I would sum up the philosophy of FSF to be that of "Software Should Not Have Owners" http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
That is the real difference between FSF and its supporters and supporters of "open source".
For whats its worth I use "Free(dom) Software" in writing, and "Freedom software/Free Software" interchangebly when talking.
Thanks Krishna
===== To Reflect, to Inspire and to Empower http://www.employees.org/~krishnap/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail