No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you redefine

    your own language.
It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific

activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights

organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria

for what that should mean in practice.
      When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because

    they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn

    fine line.
That is not the reason why I do not endorse OpenBSD.  I've explained

several times, so I won't go into detail yet again.