No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you redefine
your own language.
It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
activities. Consider, for instance, "free elections". Human rights
organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
for what that should mean in practice.
When you refuse to endorse some free OSes because
they allow proprietary software to be installed, you are walking a damn
fine line.
That is not the reason why I do not endorse OpenBSD. I've explained
several times, so I won't go into detail yet again.
