It seems that the well crafted utopia that RMS designed in 1984 doesn't actually reflect real peoples use of computers. RMS very carefully crafted a definition of Free Software, which is very much a developer centric view of the world.
A developer, or any reasonably clued in user, can really deal with this specific problem fairly easily, with some host file fixes. I mean, who has used a computer for more than a couple of years and not done that at least once, to get around some e.g. license server BS? You don't need the source code, and you don't need the right to modify the source code. Source would help, but it might not be the easiest way to actually solve this problem. It being Free Software or not is irrelevant; it being controlled by a corporation is irrelevant. Its not hard to find examples of community (or individual) projects that have tried to do the same.
I'm reminded of some email thread from years ago that RMS was shocked - shocked! - that anyone would buy a gaming console; why would you want a computer you couldn't program? He wasn't talking about hacking up the kernel, but just not being able to interface with it with something akin to the programming power of /bin/sh. That such a device doesn't have a GPL'd bash makes it evil, that it doesn't have any shell makes it useless, or so his logic goes.
I'm also reminded that RMS was shocked - shocked! - at the explosion of ASP's in the 21st century, delivering software as a service, and the (arduous) scramble to put together a new version of the GPL to address this evil. How could he of predicted that? I mean, there isn't any way he couldn't of known about 1965 Multics, or 1975 Compuserve is there? Developers! Developers! Developers! No other view was consulted, and no other view is relevant to the vision that RMS has.
The issue is that most people, and developers most of the time, do not interact with their computers as developers did in 1983.
Trying to apply that vision to modern problems is just stupid.