There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
You seem to agree, though.
> Copyleft software compels certain things.
Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses.
But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free software licenses, and vice versa.) So preferring open source over free software is meaningless, they are the same thing.
> The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
For political reasons that have nothing to do with what licenses meet the definitions each organization establishes.
You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible.
Also, from this wikipedia article here [1]: "The Free Software Foundation has related but distinct criteria for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies software as free software. Most free software licenses are also considered open-source software licenses." According to them, A does not always equal B here.
Sorry, I had no intention of being rude; I just dislike the misconception that permissive licenses are not Free Software, because it turns people who dislike copyleft against the whole concept.
I'd like to see folks get more educated about what their license options are and the implications of using them in general.