I'm puzzled - you say it is FUD; but then you seem to agree with him. How is it FUD?
The implication is that the OSI is not interested in software freedom because it disagrees with the FSF on one corner-case. This is historically and factually inaccurate.
This "corner case" is clear cut, the NASA Open Source agreement requires any contribution to be "original", one cannot take bits and bobs from another project and incopreate it into a NASA Open Source licensed project.
This is clearly a non-free license, since it violates freedom 3, "the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.".
The OSI disagrees with this freedom, and have decided to list a license that is not a free software license amongst its approved licenses.
I fail to see what is historically inaccureate, or factually incorrect. The OSI has listed, and lists licenses that do not adher to the four freedoms of software, the only conclusion is that they do not care about software freedom.