Notices by LucKey Productions (luckeyproductions@c.im)

@Suiseiseki The problem is that it is vague, and can be stretched to the point of calling things (for instance) libre games while all the media is nonfree, or all of a program's icons. Despite it being unusable without. It can then reasonably be claimed the assets get in the way of the complete piece of software's freedoms, but often gets called free software anyway. It is the FSF definition - not the DSFG - that explicitly allows for some leniency here.
This is another implication that "free software" focuses mainly on free source code, instead of programs as a whole. In part because that makes monetization easier. Exactly what you accuse "open source" of; that the focus is on profit rather then freedom.

A name is not media, and sometimes ties in with the copyright holder(s). That's a different issue. For instance when the word "Team" is appended to the name of the project to represent a collective author.

@Suiseiseki The open source definition is an almost exact copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. GNU accepts free software require "that you change the name of the modified version [or] remove a logo", which the DFSG and OSD do not (seem to) allow for. One might therefor argue open source is in fact more strict in demanding freedom of the software as a whole than free software is.

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#not_just_code
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#packaging

Note that the three organisations disagree on the approval of several licenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#Approvals