I think you misread, actually: I said you thought the FSF ethos was wrong-and-bad, not the FSF itself.

Indeed--which raises the question, do you consider the Church of England ethos bad, given that several of its central tenets are wrong?

I'm even more baffled now. You said the FSF ethos was wrong. I paraphrased that statement in response, saying that I thought you thought that the FSF ethos was wrong, because I thought that's what you said. Why are you now asking me to defend the claim that the FSF ethos is wrong? I never said I thought it! I said I thought you thought it.

It is what I said. I distinguish between "bad" (in this context, "net negative for the world, morally objectionable") and "wrong" (i.t.c "incorrect") and you appear not to, which is reasonable enough.

Ah, I see; none of this sidetrack would have arisen if I hadn't thoughtlessly said "wrong and bad". I'm sorry about that. It's a sort of stock phrase among some people I know, used without much thought. (Though also, after you said "disrespectful of the rights and freedom of [a group of] people", I don't think it's too unreasonable to be left with the impression you thought the thing thus described was a bad thing!)