That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses

That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses that completely depend on such a provision being obvious (somewhat notably the original DJB's license terms for qmail and daemontools). Another issue is then whether such license terms are actually enforceable and not in conflict with the copyright(-related) law of given jurisdiction. For example Directive 2009/24/EC explicitly stipulates bunch of things that cannot be part of contract (ie. EULA) and if they are these parts are void, end result of this is that if you legally acquire some software the licensor cannot limit what you will use it for, not even by separate contract. In fact Directive 2009/24/EC gives you as a user exactly the rights that GPL intends to preserve. What it does not do is make excercising these rights possible/efficient/effective, which GPL intends to do (and, well, for typical situation that motivated RMS to start GNU/FSF/GPL the difference is moot, you will end up disassembling the contents of whatever memory the thing runs from because that is the source of truth, not the source code that it was supposedly built from).