> licenses that OSI and FSF approve as FOSS are literally the same and they have to guarantee the same freedoms. OSI is just nicer with industry and have actual professional leadership.
OSI vs FSF has nothing to do with the point at hand.
The BSD license permits making proprietary forks. The GPL does not. Those are examples
of the distinction between "open source" and "free software."
> people who got in FOSS as a religion
Oh no! Not religion!
This is a ad-hominem argument based on anti-religious bigotry.
> don't really understand the licensing.
Again ad-hominem.
Quoth Wikipedia [1]
> Free software, libre software, libreware sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under open-source licenses that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions.
> [...] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software and, subsequently, over their devices.
> The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
The requirement that those distributing the software give to their users the same rights given to themselves is the defining distinction between open source & free software.