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!)