I don't use a 'reducing number of restrictions' definition. That's a straw man that I was responding to. I also don't accept "history shows us" as establishing

I don't use a 'reducing number of restrictions' definition. That's a straw man that I was responding to. I also don't accept "history shows us" as establishing some law of nature when the history we're talking about is a couple of decades. I think the abandoning of ecosystems can just as easily be explained by them being based on inadequate foundations, than by a mythical horde of developers somehow being prevented from working on them. Usually systems are abandoned because of a lack of economic incentive, after all the displacement you describe can only happen if proprietary development produces enhancements more efficiently than open source. Witness the failure of the Linux desktop. I think 'greatly reducing the total options that users can effectively perform' is a statement that needs much more qualification. To me, that's a function of design, extensibility, and how much leverage a system provides, and is independent of whether the source is available or not. Extending by forking is a last resort. Nevertheless, I do respect the hypothesis that a GPL style open system provides an important counterbalance to proprietary systems. What I do not support is the dishonest use of language and morality to further it. If you are using positive freedom, then there is much more to be gained through improvements in software design - e.g. along the lines of Alan Kay's FONC - to increase leverage - than through ideology.