This might seem like a paradox: you give people "more freedom", but they end up with less. How can that be? It has to do with stretching the word "freedom" to include the ability to control other people. That kind of "freedom" tends to leave other people with less freedom. What happened with the X Window System illustrates this unambiguously (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html).
This assumes that writing and selling proprietary software is 'the ability to control other people'. I fail to see why this would be the case. Free software is a good thing, but people *choose* to accept the restrictions of non-free software for any number of reasons. I do not see anyone being coerced into using it by threat of physical force. regards, -Blake (who prefers markets to religions, even with software)