> But then again, even that's wrong, because there's nothing stopping
> anyone -- Apple being the shiniest example -- from taking FOSS
> products and using them to DRM advantage.
Mmmwell yes and no. Remember that the Gnu Public License that Stallman devised, and which applies to most of Linux, was created to forestall precisely the sort of hijacking you describe, where there is no legal barrier to folding public domain works into proprietary works, thereby taking advantage of the work of the commons to hold it hostage. The GPL's unfriendliness to proprietary claims lead to the creation of the term Open Source by those who frankly wanted the magic pixie dust of the collaboration without the principled encumberance of free-speech software:
[....]
Although born from the same history of Unix, Internet free software, and the hacker culture as the free software movement launched by Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative was formed and chose the term open source, in Michael Tiemann's words, to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software' in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape."[1]
[....]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative#Relations_with_the_free_software_movement>
As a result, Stallman bristles at the lumping together of free and open-source software in terms like "FOSS" -- and rightly so, I think, in part because of the difference in their relative resistance to being folded into campaigns such as DRM. He has said quite explicitly that any supposed technical advantages that Free Software has as Open Source Software are in principle secondary: that freedom is what's most important. I think he has a compelling argument, even if his principles are sometimes difficult to adhere to.
-- Andy