My above comment (the grandparent of this comment) was a clarification of my earlier comment. The disagreement between RMS and myself indeed comes down to my personal definition of "freedom" and my personal views on intellectual property protection. I have indeed heard your argument before, and I suppose I can concede that RMS's philosophy is internally logical given his definition/usage of "freedom."

Still, I find the GPL to be more restrictive and less free than the public domain, and therefore less desirable. I take issue with the way RMS and GNU uses the words "free" and "freedom" because I see their philosophy not as a principled desire for freedom, but rather merely as a desire for certain restrictions on freedom (granted, a different set of restrictions than proprietary software licenses).

I think that "The Free Software Movement" is an unfortunate title. Not only do they have to constantly remind average readers of their definition of "free as in speech, not as in beer," they also should be clarifying their definition of "free" for people like myself who believe that freedom is an utmost concern. Perhaps a better though less catchy title for their movements would be "The Publicly Available Source Code Movement."