Think what you like about whether they should talk about freedom, but we can easily confirm that they don't.
It means they didn't use the word, "freedom" on their home page. OpenBSD people care about and talk about freedom, I assure you. They have a track record of ejecting software with insufficiently free licenses from inclusion their project.
FreeBSD has switched to Clang because, among other reasons, they consider it freer. You and RMS may not agree that that it is indeed freer, but it is obnoxious and demonstrably untrue to say they, "don't talk about freedom".
As for Mono, I was there at the conception of the project, and can thereby tell you off the top of my head that if you go to the History section of the documentation they have an archived copy of the premise, and it is dropping with "free as in freedom" language.
http://www.mono-project.com/archived/mailpostlongreply/
(More "current", "Free Software" also listed as a "Feature Highlight" in the about page.)
> The Clang and LLVM developers reach different conclusions from ours because they do not share our values and goals. They object to the measures we have taken to defend freedom because they see the inconvenience of them and do not recognize (or don't care about) the need for them. I would guess they describe their work as "open source" and do not talk about freedom.
If you're objecting to that, well, where do they talk about freedom? I'm saying rms appears to be correct because I can't find anything they have to say about the issue. I searched more than the homepage.
OSS programmers who disagree with him about license must not talk or (care) about freedom? Really? Jesus that's shitty.