Having a stable ABI means locking down the ability to modify source code and compile it yourself, thereby stripping you of these very important freedoms.

Sorry… can’t follow this reasoning. Either the source is open (and thus open to modification) or it is not. Having a stable ABI has nothing to do with that. There are some systems in the Linux kernel that have not changed in ages (and are not allowed to change if the kernel developers are to be believed). Does that make the Linux kernel locked down in ones ability to modify the source code?

Really lost right now…

The term “ABI” literally stands for Application Binary Interface. Having a stable one is literally the antithesis of a libre/open-source project.

Can you elaborate? Having an unstable ABI does not make an project libre/open-source… but one might be wrong. And This creature is open to a different point of view.

Linux requires source compilation by design.

So does every other software on this planet? Microsoft Windows requires compilation from source. The source just happens to not be under an open-source license (or even source available to have a look inside for oneself…)

edit:typo