Unix and Linux → Re: OpenBSD's de Raadt Slams RH & Canonical Re 'Secure' Boot

Your point is well taken.
I think it is also important to remember that freedom comes at a sliding scale, and it is also important to keep in mind "freedom for whom?"
The GNU requirement for share-alike and requiring the publishing of code reduces the amount of freedom the implementer of the software has, but increases the freedom for the user.
A license with no restrictions enhances the freedoms of the implementer, but allows for the freedoms of the user to be compromised.
Regardless of where specific licenses sit on the freedom scale, when we talk about "Free Software" the word free is intended to mean freedom. When we talk about freeware we are intending free to the mean gratis.
This is the common understanding and using it any other way is going to make it difficult for you to communicate with others because what you are intending to say, what you are saying, and what the listener hears will not match.
So if TRP says Free Software he should expect those of us here to understand "freedom software." If he doesn't mean freedom software then he should say freeware. If he doesn't the miscommunication is on him, not us.

Well put. I only meant to separate FSF.org "free" from the general freedom use as (I love this, great wording) "the scale" is not fixed.

There are also excellent cases where freedom lacking freeware should still be celebrated, used, and highly cited for others to use. Pande Group's Folding at Home comes to mind first, the Linux kernel second.