These are good definitions but the original post wasn't referring to people not taking into account the philosophical part of free software, unless it really meant "copyleft".
A permissive licence doesn't really transmit the intent of the author, philosophy or not (it doesn't really matter, the licence is the same).
A copyleft licence, on the other hand, backs the philosophy behind free software via the actual licence.
But you are right, it should be "copyleft vs permissive open source".
Unless I misunderstand them, what about using the actual definitions?
- Proprietary software can be closed-source or source-available
- Open-source software can be under a permissive or copyleft license
- Free software is a philosophy around open-source software, but in practice FOSS and OSS are mostly the same thing.