Let me now point out that the FSF considers the original BSD license to be a free software license, and the modified BSD license, which dropped the advertising clause constraint of the original, to be not only a free software license but a GPL-compatible one at that. The bazaar is a babble of voices, each insisting on its own right, its freedom, to be heard. Those standing on the outside, like Winer, are likely to hear only the shrillest voices and to build their understanding on them, whether those voices come from competing choirs or not. Unfortunately, the shifting sands of context switching don't make a good foundation for understanding. It's really simple.
Open source is an umbrella.
It is as much about development methodology as licensing issues. Free software is a subset of those programs that fall under the open source canopy. Stallman's insistance on calling GPL'd software free instead of open source is a plea for a greater understanding of the principles involved. But the fact remains that Linux and all the other GPL'd software in the world is indisputably open source as well as free software. As long as you are using a definition of open source that I agree with, that is.