You make good points and are certainly using one valid definition of "software freedom". It focuses on the people who write code. The idea of such "copyleft" l

You make good points and are certainly using one valid definition of "software freedom". It focuses on the people who write code. The idea of such "copyleft" licenses is to go further and use copyright law as a tool in what is seen as a broader fight for freedom. This fight (see the Free Software Foundation for more) focuses on the people who run the code --- not the people who write it. The premise is that my fundamental rights and freedoms are infringed when I run non-free code. Therefore, the argument goes, we should use copyright law to ensure that our code cannot be used in such ways to exploit or hurt people, by requiring that anyone who uses our code makes the source available to the people running it.