I'm a very happy user of both OpenBSD and GNU/Linux systems, but what

I don't get is,  how is limiting a users choice in what he/she runs on

his/her system more free than one that doesn't?
Absolute freedom is to be able to do whatever the hell you want to

with no limitations placed on you whatsoever.  By this definition,

public domain is the only truly free "license".
I understand and appreciate the "freedom" that is defined by both the

BSD and GPL licenses; that of ensuring the authors continual right of

ownership.  However, in terms of true freedom, both have limitations in

place.
Not that I disagree with the limitations they have, in fact I support

them both as the current systems in place require the need to protect

your original copyright.  It's Utopian for me to think this, but in an

ideal setting, there would be no need for any licesnes and everything

would be available in the public domain.  But since we are arguing about

which license ensures more freedom, I think they both fall short of

what it actually means to be free.