You're selectively quoting. The important part wasn't that the FSF claims that those licenses are "GPL-Compatible," which nobody disputes; the important part wa

You're selectively quoting. The important part wasn't that the FSF claims that those licenses are "GPL-Compatible," which nobody disputes; the important part was that the FSF claims that those licenses are "Free Software Licenses." Do you dispute that? Elsewhere in this thread you imply that you believe that the GPL is not an Open Source license. Can you clarify that, too? Because, again, it sounds like you're using terms that don't match what the Free Software and Open Source communities mean by those terms. (In particular, GNU would disagree with this claim - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html - as would the OSI, of course.) So you should define them.