Did anyone claim that it was `Free Software`? Does anyone ever claim that they're trying to release free-software but not FSF free-software? I think the issue

Did anyone claim that it was `Free Software`? Does anyone ever claim that they're trying to release free-software but not FSF free-software? I think the issue is that the opposite of `closed-source` is clearly not `OSI Approved License(tm) open-source`. If had the influence they like to claim with their "we invented the term open-source" myth, why don't they go invent some term for "non-closed source, non-OSI approved license(tm)" software, and everyone will use that. BTW, here's a handy list of uses of `open-source` going back to 1985... Seems that the term was already in existence, I guess that's why the OSI's attempt at "open-source(tm)" went down in flames... https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage