Second, there's still no common definition of "free software." It's even mentioned in the post, but no attempt is made to finally clarify the situation.

I'm a lifelong FOSS supporter, and yet "free as in freedom" is one of the most confusing definitions I've ever encountered. It literally explains nothing, like "nuclear as in nuclear physics."

The problem is that open-source can be easily defined, but everyone has their own understanding of freedom. "Free software" is anything... and nothing.

Third, the attempts to add ethical constraints to software licenses are a direct consequence of the abovementioned unclear definition. I'm the author of this free software, and here's my understanding of freedom, so why don't I add a new clause to the license?

Open-source has a practical advantage here. GPL says you can do pretty much whatever you want with the code, but the sources must stay open so that anyone could take the code, (optionally) modify it and compile their own application.

Side note: I'm a very practical and down-to-earth person. To me, the practical freedom that GPL allows is enough.

However, there's one problem that no kind of license can solve. It's called copyright law. In his post, Cory Doctorow provides several examples of how copyright has been used to harass Creative Commons and ethically-bound software licenses. Yet - and this is perhaps my most significant disagreement with him - he never says that it's all copyright's fault.

Which it is, of course.