Can you expound on why not? He certainly preached of open source software (and a superset of it) long before anyone else was thinking along those lines. With regard to Free Software, he is still before his time.
Oh wow, that's actually a great articulation what he stands for. It still seems like a superset of open source, i.e. that open source advocates believe in a subset of those ideals, and often for practical in leu of ideological reasons.
Free Software is a philosophy and political movement. If your system runs code, you have the right to modify that code. Closed source binaries are profane and immoral (user retains freedom of usage and modification; developer may never "close" the source unless they originated the entire codebase (see: "viral GPL")).
This is also where the nerd-power term "Libre" comes into play which inspired such misnamed catastrophies as "LibreOffice."
Free ~ Libre = Freedom of User Modification, free as in "I'm free, I'm not a slave" — nothing to do with monetary "free" of not paying for code you can see, though that is seemingly a prerequisite.
Open Source is just putting stuff up online and saying "lol whatevz." If your system runs code, it may have had an origin in open source software but got forked and now the new creator doesn't want you to see it. Open source binaries give you no rights as a user (developer retains freedom of distribution and profiteering off other people's code without giving back; user has no rights).
Update: Free Software also prides itself on excessively pedantic terminology and 16 different kinds of Free Software each with their own rights and restrictions (e.g. AGPL (or "The Coward's License") versus GPL2 versus GPL3 versus LGPL versus TEAPOT-GPL, ...)
Update2: They also like parrots, but please do not buy one just for them to play with. Parrots are a lifelong commitment.
Firstly, we would refer to them as proprietary or non-free binaries (perhaps even user-subjugating), not "closed source".
Second, you're conflating copyleft with free and permissive with open. This is not the case. The definitions of free software and open source are largely identical (copyleft/permissive being OK both under free and open definitions), however the open source movement rejects all ethical, moral and social arguments, in addition to not concerning itself with privacy rights, DRM, Tivoization and other threats to user freedom.
