Yes, I'm talking about freedom for everyone. Stallman claims he seeks "freedom", when he only provides it to certain entities. Thus, it's not freedom.
BSD is free for everyone, because authorial freedom takes precedence due to the fact the end-user is free to make a choice regarding their own usage.
Stallman wants freedom for the code, BSD provides freedom for distributors.
You are still failing to realize that by giving more freedom to distributors you are inherently taking freedom away from the code.
Stallman wants freedom through slavery. That isn't freedom, merely the illusion of it.
Who's he enslaving exactly?
But I'm glad you finally agree the GPL is restrictive, now all you need to do is stop calling it free. Open? sure. Free? nope.
Finally agree? I've always said that the GPL is restrictive. All license are restrictive, that's the whole point of needing a license to begin with.
What keeps flying over your head is that distributors aren't the only subject that define the freedom of a license.
Yes, by inferring that freedom includes the ability for person A to impose themselves upon person B at B's expense to preserve A's so-called "freedom", when person A has other freedoms they can use that allow both parties to retain freedom.
You are still focusing on the freedom of distributors alone as the single metric to define if a license is free when the GPL is about the freedom of the code itself, which other licenses like the BSD restrict.
Person A isn't imposing himself over person B, he's just not allowing a restriction on the freedom of the code just to cater to person B interests. Person B remains completely free to decide if he agrees with that or not.
Person B doesn't have any inherent right over person A's code, as demonstrated by the fact that even what you consider to be free licenses still impose restrictions on what B can do with it.