@lamp I'm sorry, that's not how it works.

It's not a restriction of freedom to not go out of your way to authorize the exercise of power in a way that reduces freedom.

The way copyright law works is to allow a licenser to provide either permissions to do nothing (All Rights Reserved) or permissions for other activities.

The GPLv3 authorizes all legitimate software related conveying activities.

If you don't like the distribution terms of the GPLv3, that's fine, you may reject it, but you end up with the default "All Rights Reserved" terms which doesn't allow the exercising of power by other developers in the first place - if you have a problem with that, bring it up with the government.


You seem to be arguing that proprietary software is free, as the developer gets all the freedom.