Speaking strictly about the OS (meaning the kernel + drivers + infrastructure userland (bin utils) + basic libraries + dev tools), I definitely want THAT to be full open source. Why? because OSes should be commodities, not "value bearing products".

I would even throw the API/ABI/user-interface layer into there, but that's a harder sell (at least one company makes good money focusing on this layer (Apple); on the desktop/laptop level, that's pretty much where their value is).

At the "platform level" (Ubuntu, Maemo, the OS X that is on the CD, etc.) ... I don't think there's any good reason at all to insist, in an ideological way, that the entire platform has to be 100% open source. Entities (companies or individuals) have a right to do more than just trade in commodities. They have a right to create value, and charge for the value that they've created.

Anyone can take Linux, GnuBinUtils, X, and GTK+ and bundle it together into a commodity distribution.

But if I want to create a value-added distribution, with some basic and/or killer applications ... and use those killer apps as my "value add", and thus charge for my distribution ... who are you (the generic "you") to tell me I don't have the freedom to do that?

If you don't want the apps, you're free to go with any of the other commodity distributions out there. Go for it. I wont lose any sleep over it.

If you want my value added apps, tough luck. They're my apps. You only get them under my terms (whether those terms are open or closed). If you don't like that, write your own to compete with mine, and distribute them under your terms.

Freedom isn't just getting what YOU want. Freedom is each person having the choice to make their own decisions. Your decision to buy X vs Y, and my decision to distribute MY code under license N vs M.