Also, I have to say that I think it's a mistake to view "open source" as solely motivated by commerce. One big practical difference between FSF and OSI is how accepting they are of permissive licenses like BSD and MIT. Basically, OSI likes them and FSF doesn't. (Or at least FSF prefers copyleft licenses like GPL.)
It's true that permissive licenses are more commerce-friendly, but one could also argue that they are more freedom-friendly as well. After all, with a permissive license, you can add your own proprietary extensions to a codebase and then sell the resulting executable without sharing the source for the extensions. With copyleft licenses, you are restricted from doing this. Thus permissive is arguably more free-as-in-freedom.
Of course, copyleft advocates argue that copyleft licenses are more free in a larger sense, in that they guarantee that the code stays free. And, you know, maybe they're right. But I think it's something that reasonable people can disagree about. Whereas a lot of copyleft advocates seem to think that permissive licenses are a sign of moral weakness.
I would say the permissive licenses are "free" in a libertarian sense, and the copyleft licenses are "free" in maybe an anarcho-syndicalist sense.
It seems like a lot of people are convinced that copyleft licenses are more ethical than permissive licenses. I'm afraid I just don't agree with this.