I think you might be interpreting some non-existent malice between the two movements. Stallman's stance is simply 'There are two movements - open-source and free software. Please affiliate me with the correct one'.
He may do so and yes, he does so in a quite neutral, polite way.
But I would disagree that there are 2 different movements, when all that divides is the copyleft. So I consider the "free" software movement as a (fanatic) part of the open source world.
Btw the freedom of "free" software is actually less, than oss. Because with oss i cqn indeed do whatever i want, and with "free" software I can't.
So I can't help, but mock them from time to time ...
The difference between free software and open source isn't copyleft. Both free software and open source embrace copyleft.
From your writing I deduce you are of the opinion that open source is more or less equivalent to permissive licensing, i.e., using BSD-style licenses.
The actual difference between the two is that open source values the productivity benefits that come from sharing, whereas free software is primarily about protecting the freedom of people.
Mocking should be done carefully, and one should avoid mocking things one doesn't understand.
> whereas free software is primarily about protecting the freedom of people.
That's why people often misunderstand the redefined/restricted freedom of GPL. I don't even want to associate GNU with "free software". Just replace "have the freedom to ..." for "have the right to ...", this way the philosophy of GPL would sound better to my ears.
