I'm a software dev and I do not consider anti-freedom-0 source available software to be free software in any meaningful way. If the original author can tell me I'm not legally allowed to use their software unless I hold to a poltical standard they impose, then the software might as well be proprietary.
I think you misunderstood my comment, which is understandable as it was double negative
I was pointing out that devs are perfectly fine with the official definition of free software - and the only ones wanting to extend it further are people that wish to incorrectly label their software as open source - which usually are CEOs of companies which want to portrait their closed software as open for marketing reasons.
IANAL, but I think your cited example would not fall under the open source label either. And all devs I know would prefer the definition of the term to be kept as is, making it not open source.
