The thing is, clearly I do understand the licensing and redistribution restrictions :) Therefore, I would kindly ask that you re-read what I wrote. I want a Linux platform, where I can go to the Adobe website and just download flash "for Linux" and have it work (not have it discontinued because there are too many targets). And flash is a silly example. In general, I want to be able to go to software vendor X, download a package "for Linux", and have it just work, like it does on every other platform. I don't want the distinction to be whether or not distribution Y has a policy or inability to ship something. Like most users, sometimes I just want a particular package and I am willing (in certain cases) to live with that not always being Free. We would have more users if we made that experience far more pleasant than it is today, instead of telling them why we can't ship what they didn't ask us to ship on their behalf in the first place.
Note, I used to run vrms and let myself get all personally guilty at having any non-Free software installed. And I did that for many years. But after 17 years, I've donned a pragmatic hat. I want users to be able to make choices around their preferred software. This cannot happen if we allow our own personal preferences for an entirely Free world to cloud the bigger picture that we are going to lose out to platforms (however closed) that make it a simple process to get software. Android isn't winning just because it's Google, it's winning because it's a platform people can write software against fairly trivially. Maybe the answer (on Linux distro Y) is "HTML5 will save the day" (which I seriously doubt, but ok). Meanwhile, there is no real alternative to the Windows, Android, or OSX "app store" (no need to tell me all about what Canonical are doing, that isn't the same).