It is easier to qualify objective evidence to emphatic opinion than remit his own opinion in question and see the truth in the face.
Especially for those who are self-convinced that Nokia has chosen the best solution.

Deprive the user of certain important liberties for its own interest is not something wrong?

We haven't got the same conception of good and evil. (don't kill me )

Wow, with completely objective declarations like that, who dares argue?

Yes, people don't have always access to everything - That's life.
I also still decide myself who is allowed to enter my flat.
That's what I meant by personal freedom. :-)

The situation that corresponds most to Maemo is:

If the construction company that built your flat prohibit the access to some place on the pretext that this is for you don't steal their secrets of manufacture.

What would you say in this situation?

No, as I own the flat, while you don't own Maemo. You just got a license.

I noticed that here, some people (like you), regardless of the evidence, if it remit in question the decisions of Nokia they refuse to hear (or see) reason.

So I will not tire me with these people, and concentrate on those who still have freewill.

And this is the problem with proprietary software.

With a Free (as free speach) Software, you got a copy and the licence defines your freedom (4 important freedom of Free (as free speach) Software and more).

With a proprietary software, you just got a licence to definit a very restricted right to only use.

Just to clarify copyright vs license: The creator always has the copyright on what I've created, and it's him/her who decides how weak or strong the license for other people is. It's his/her decision only as he/she created it, no matter whether it's music, books or software code.
Pushing the creator (e.g. me) into using a specific licence means reducing my personal freedom and pushing me into something ideological. And “Ideology is a brain disease,” to quote Jerry Rubin. Hence I'm happy that there are different licenses available, from weak to strong, and that the creator (Nokia, you, me, whoever) can choose.

I respect the creator's decision and can of coutrse question it.
If good arguments are provided creators revise their decisions. For example Carsten filed requests with very good arguments in Bugzilla to open the code of example statusbar-alarm-dbus-api (#4560). Hence Nokia has changed that code to open source.
That's how it works, and I like it.

EVERY software license defines your freedom, also licenses of proprietary software. The latter might provide less freedom for you (e.g. no access to the source code), but exactly that is the freedom of the creator of that software.

Now is your freedom more important than the freedom of the creator to choose the licence he/she wants?