Your definition of free is replete with chains; you would deny the
    freedom of choice in the name of freedom.

Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".

This always leads to the question of "which freedom?"  In the area of
software, I want a society in which users are free to run software,
free study and change its source code and make their changed versions
run, and free to redistribute changed and unchanged versions.  In
other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
exist.

Establishing a free society that endures generally requires not
allowing people to give up freedom.  In other words, it requires
inalienable rights.  I do not want a society in which people had those
freedoms only until they gave them up.

I do not say this with the expectation that you will agree with me.
It sounds like you are as firmly convinced of your views as I am of
mine.  I hope, though, that at least you will understand better
what my position is.