This is your opinion. I will not even attempt to say it is not a valid opinion: a lot of people I know hold this opinion, and at least in the short term it seems to be a consistent opinion. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had "in the long term", but it is just that: a discussion. However, I am going to assert that it is, in fact, an opinion. The thing you need to understand is that the other side of this particular opinion does not actually care about either "#_advances_open_sourced" or "%_advances_open_sourced": the goal is freedom, not openness, and these are assets that are neither equivalent nor convertible.

To put this into a very simple example: if Apple open sourced every single software component on the iPhone, that would be extremely "open". We would know everything about how the iPhone worked, and we'd have learned a lot as a community about how to build mobile phone operating systems. This would help other people and companies work on mobile phones, and might have positive effects on things entirely unrelated to mobile phones. To the people who care about variables related to "#_advances_open_sourced", this would be a great outcome, and "%_advances_open_sourced" is even 100%: seems great.

But, in such a universe, I will argue that the users of an iPhone are still not "free" because they are unable to take the software running on their iPhone and replace it with modified software based on all of that wonderful open source code. In fact, lest you say "people then shouldn't buy an iPhone", it might be the case that users of any device are not free, because there is absolutely no guarantee in such a universe that any of the numerous devices that are based on this open source software--even if 100% of the software on these devices is itself open source--actually allow users to modify the software running on them (hence, GPL3).

This is the difference between "free" and "open", and in my understanding this is why Stallman makes the points he makes: he doesn't care whether there are more cool and fun toys built out of open components, what he cares about is whether the toys we have restrict our freedom. It might be that a world where we are more free has fewer toys. In my interpretation, Stallman would consider that a "win" for mankind. In his mind, that argument "so don't buy an iPhone" seems to be related to the argument "so don't link against their code", and he wants people to stop: the idea is that if you don't like people restricting freedom, you should actively avoid yourself supporting it.

(So, that's all I really have to say in response. However, if you--or anyone else--finds this kind of stuff interesting, I spent a lot of time a few months ago writing a lot about this subject, and in particular this tradeoff, in a comment thread on Hacker News when FreeBSD deprecated gcc. Of particular highlight, I go into detail on the property that GPL is more a license about binaries and hackability as it applies to end users than about source code and extensibility as it applies to developers, as well as why this causes debates about this subject among a bunch of developers to be problematic, due to the different incentives developers have from end users.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724