Well, the phrasing implies that Mozilla is being unethical, which is incredibly unfair. There's a huge difference between saying that "X is more in keeping with

Well, the phrasing implies that Mozilla is being unethical, which is incredibly unfair. There's a huge difference between saying that "X is more in keeping with our ideals than Y" vs. saying that "X is more ethical than Y", particularly when the specific points of contention have little or nothing to do with things that most people even think of as having a moral or ethical dimension. I mean, it's typical for FSF communications, in the sense that it uses very, very broad terms ("free", "ethical", etc.) to mean very specific things as a way of confusing the reader (how can anyone hate freedom?!?). It's also a rhetorical ploy to emphasize their own certainty as to the correctness of their ideals. It doesn't make it any less cynical of them though (not that they're aware that they're being cynical), and it doesn't make it any less of a way to passive-aggressively throw unfair shade on people or organizations who don't share 100% of their beliefs with equal fervor.