[dragonwriter]

> To the FSF, "free" is just a shorthand way of saying "Free Software Foundation-licensed".

Not entirely true; the FSF recognizes lots of other licenses as "free".

Its true that the FSF thinks that its licenses are the most appropriate for promoting software freedom.

I think they're wrong: if you can convince people that Free Software has value, you don't need a copyleft license forcing them to give back, and if you can't convince them of that, a copyleft license doesn't help you get them to create free software, it just prevents them from engaging with it at all, gets them to commit to an alternative, and makes them less likely to to commit back even if they later realize a value in Free (since if they commit to a non-Free third-party alternative, the cost of switching it out is higher.)