There's been some pretty hi-falutn' attempts at how folks should interpret freedom - but I've found most of them to be some sort of chimera to cloak good old aquisitive instincts. I'm no Stallman disciple, but I'm trusting him with the keys to freedom (in these terms)more than anyone else.
Code (as law?) will supply so much of the muscle and blood of our daily lives and for some weird reason we seem to be arguing that it should have a different base to medicine, mathematics, chemistry, physics etc in how it gets refined in the future.
If a firm joins some pieces of the puzzle together and can have some marketing smarts enough to make some $$$s along the way, then fine. Though, to have domain over the very intellectual wiring that might join us all together is not fine. Even Stallman's "viral"
GPL elements I can understand - both on a level of trying to claw back some turf from the control freaks and also as a protection against further "interpretations" taking hold.
Intellectual property is in it's infancy. Handing over the rule base to the presently-powerful now, will have repercussions for decades. Cutting up the foundations of intellectual freedom as if it's some birthday cake, is unwelcome and shows a lack of philosophical discipline.
Every mathematical formula I've ever used comes with the free blessing of the beards that supplied them - and thank you very much for that, I say. That's why I pay my taxes, educate my children and speak freely to my colleagues ...because I know that's how we birth the next bunch of formulae.