misrepresent

I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't even mentioned RMS until now. That's a very weird accusation.

Well, it looks like I was wrong about the origin of the term. I misread Eric Raymond's changelog, and after a half hour of searching I can't find an earlier use. (I wish there was a usable search for old usenet postings...)

Anything else I said still stands though - including that it's foolish to try and paint everyone with the same brush.

And yet, if I look at:

    https://archive.org/stream/CathedralAndTheBazaar/cathedral-bazaar_djvu.txt

I see that Eric Raymond used the term on November 18th 1997. Wanna place a bet that I can't find an earlier use than that? Perhaps you shouldn't trust everything you read as definitive...

Look, he used a bullshit argument. One guy says, (paraphrasing) [open source has many advantages]. The next guy replies by quoting the opensource.org website as though that's the only definition available. A citation for a strawman doesn't make it valid.

I have no idea who first put the words "open source" together, and neither do you. I think it's much more likely someone grabbed the term and added their own agenda to it after it was already popular. Regardless, assuming the original intention was as you claim, that doesn't mean everyone who uses that term now shares that view.

Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?

I can believe there are some open source advocates who claim your first bullet, and there are a few cherry examples (i.e. Linux), but I'm guessing a lot of us are better represented by, "I appreciate when other developers share their work with me, so I'll share my work with other developers." From this point of view, it's easy to see how the GPL is an impediment to professional (proprietary) developers, and why we'd choose a license better suited to sharing with ourselves.