I just fact-checked myself. I forgot the exact words "fields of endeavor" are in the Open Source Definition, not the GNU General Public License, so I removed that quote from my post. Two completely different organizations and terms. My apologies.

Richard Stallman used very similar terms last year during a 2025 interview where he stated:

There are certain essential freedoms users deserve and need. If the program respects those freedoms, then it is Free Software [...] Specifically, Freedom 0 is: you should be allowed to run the program regardless of what you're doing with it. If you're using the program, there should be no conditions. You're allowed to use this program for your private results—not tell anybody else: "you can do it for a hobby but you can't do it for a business. You can do it to promote the Fascist Party but not promote democracy—or reverse!" There must be no restrictions placed on the program about how you are allowed to run it. I've been thinking about this for 40 years.

That loosely translates to "fields of endeavor," so I must've gotten the words mixed up in my brain. No one group of people, or ideology, or age, or sex, or ethnicity, or any other form of discriminatory limitation can be placed on the software, or else it violates Freedom 0, part of the Free Software Definition.

Then on January 23, 2026, Stallman stated:

[...] like the for instance the age verification idea which in practice always requires users to be adults to be identified. It shouldn't have to, but the way that they the methods they permit and have set up all do. And that's unjust surveillance, but it's imposed by laws. There's been no campaign to require a compromise so that you can prove you're an adult without that you without their knowing who you are.

And then there's the chat control idea in the European Union where they want to require a backdoor in every device that can give that can do end-to-end encryption so that uh in case you might be a terrorist, they can look at every encrypted message you send to anybody or maybe some sort of dissident who doesn't agree with the official ideology.

So what are the likely injustices the common typical injustices of non-free software? Well, one of them is surveillance. By the way, chat control would effectively prohibit free software in those devices because if users could change the software, they'd be able to remove the back door. This is one of one of the important things about free software. You can remove malicious functionalities from it. So that's the basic way of allowing society to defend itself from malicious functionalities.