Personally I fall into the open source camp. While I largely agree with the FSF in principal I find the specific assertion that proprietary software is somehow inherently evil to be ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea - prevalent in the free software side of things - that there's something wrong with the idea of selling software.
I mean, really, if I make something and I want to sell it then what's immoral about that? It doesn't matter if the "something" in question is a book, an alarm clock, or a program. I made it, I own it, I can do what I want with it, and if I want to allow other people to use it in exchange for money, well that's the way human society has worked for thousands of years. The FSF's idea that wanting something in exchange for allowing other people to benefit from your work is somehow immoral is completely unfathomable to me. As is the idea that trade secrets protected behind precompiled binaries are inherently evil.
Open source, on the other hand, is just another programming method without all the philosophical mumbo jumbo that comes from free software. It focuses on getting stuff done in the most efficient way possible. It doesn't worry about binary distribution because 99% of all users WANT binary distribution and wouldn't know what to do with the source code if you gave it to them.
To be fair, most everything I write on my own time is out there in source code format for whoever wants it (and, of course, stuff NOT written on my own time is the property of whoever's paying me to write it, so I've no control over it, but some of that source code has been released as well). I believe in releasing source code whenever it's practical. And there's the main difference between the two camps (to my mind at least): Open source advocates recognize the fact that it's not always practical to release the source code. Free software folks fail to recognize that fact.