You seem to care about the OEM's freedoms! The free software movement cares
about the users. And, yes, they need not be protected against evil bundle in
the same way that consumers have the right to know what they eat. Do you
consider the food sellers lack freedom because they must respect sanitary
norms, must indicate the composition, etc.? Today, most of the computer can
only be purchased filled with proprietary software that harm the users'
freedoms. Many of the applications are not even mentioned. And it is close to
impossible to have those applications refunded (not even to mention, to buy
the computer without them in the first place). It definitely is a problem. It
even has a name: tying.
You basically write that "being allowed to deny your users the freedoms you
received" is a "substantial" freedom! Well... no!
You pretend onpon4 "redefine words in the english langauge" when he actually
cites the dictionary! Freedom *is* controlling one's own life.
As I wrote earlier, permissively licensed code helps the proprietary software
developers: it is "something less to develop". Copyright has no effect on
what you can bundle. No effect at all. You can always put any two works
together. Whatever their licenses. If you put a painting in the same room as
the Mona Lisa, Leonardo da Vinci does not become his author!
You seem to care about having better (more secure, etc.) proprietary
software. The free software movement cares about users' being able to escape
proprietary software without losing too much convenience: the worse the
proprietary software, the better!
