I've been observing these threads for a while, and couldn't resist the urge to jump in with my point of view anymore.
First, "freedom" is a noun, so "freedom software" sounds very odd, so I'll stick to free (meaning freedom, as is obvious to people here). Everyone is right when they say good means different things to different people. And this divergence in interpretation exists even between "lay person" and people on this list, say. (Not that I'm saying anyone is better off, just different.)
There seems to be a fundamental difference in perspectives here. Tarun, if you didn't add the "Over and above that, if it is FREE; masses would embrace it instantly.", at the very end, like (not actuality, like) it was an afterthought, more people here would tend to assume you conform to their notions of what is "good". If your list went (and you truly believed) something like,
0. Software is good if it is free. 1. Software is better if it lets me achieve ....
and so on, much of this discussion won't even be taking place.
People (me included) sometimes do things because they've been conditioned by their environment to behave in a certain way. "Lay person" or "end user" doesn't mean the person is unintelligent, incapable of, or unwilling to learn. Society as I've experienced it (and anyone else in a similar time frame, for that matter) made it common place (if not acceptable) to treat software, loosely, like "intellectual commodities" whose insides can be hidden from the user when sold. It was reasoned out to us that those insides had more value to the creator as a secret. They were the reason the creator could put food on their table. Perfectly legitimate sounding argument given only so much information. A large portion of the regular population, haven't experienced how much easier and faster (intellectual and consequently societal) progress is if information and ideas are shared as in say, an open academic setting. That is how everything they saw around them was done, and they don't see the need to question it or think it wrong. For anyone, their freedom matters to them. Some people just don't realize what they are giving up when they use software that is non-free. Once explained, they will see what you're talking about and eventually convert.
[Arbitrary conversation log that seems fitting: http://actuality.wahgnube.org/index.php?p=88 ]
This isn't about the inherent capability of the software itself, because for most common tasks, excellent free software exist. Today. The reasons why the masses don't flock to them is social inertia as much as anything else. If the common man were to wait until "software becomes best" (by the definition on that list of yours) and free before using it, at that point of time though you've opened a channel to communicate your message, it might not be the person's driving force to stay there. What if a "bester" (making up words as I feel the need) non free software comes along?
What people are looking for here (or at least I am anyway), is something along the lines of "if the philosophy wins, what happens to the software is inconsequential".
Harish | http://wahgnube.org/