I don't know specifically what RMS has said and has not said. For the most of it I'm not interested. What I am interested in are the actions. Like him or not, but RMS has clearly done good things for anyone who believes computers should be devices that you and I are free to hack on on your own.
(I'm carefully avoiding your TFA quote because I have nothing useful to comment on that. Yes, I agree that the API only has value because it's coming from this one company. I don't really think this has much to do with openness).
To the extent that you're fond of free software and RMS, that's nice, but the topic is TFA.
For anyone reading this that don't know what we're on about , read --> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...
(edit: I generally agree with RMS's points. I might confuse "open" and "free". For anyone not native to English these words might be interchangeable. I'm not a native English speaker. It becomes clearer when you define the words such as done in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... , but in a day to day conversation, it's easy to get the exact definitions wrong)
No, we're not discussing one thing vs. another, we're discussing different things. That is a whole other situation entirely.
"Openness" is a relative and meaninglessly vague term in this context. Anything short of a open-sourced program and completely public data is less "open" than some alternative. The complaints that 99.99% of people make about APIs have less to do with "openness" than poor communication by the provider in the forms of bad documentation and unwarned changes.
TFA: "Facebook Connect is not open. It's controlled by one company."
Yes, because if it was another company, you wouldn't care about this API. The API only matters to anyone because it's Facebook.
I adore free software, but "openness" is a lousy justification for trying to work up umbrage about the difficulties of working in a parasitic developer ecosystem.