> The Stalman approach would be to never use a Coke machine

That's a misrepresentation for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's a misrepresentation of what Free Software is about: having freedom to use/alter/etc. "the things you own". When buying a coke from a machine, that has nothing to do with whether you own that machine.

Free Software is concerned about the power imbalance that copyright can enable. For example, purchasing a computer chess game is very different from purchasing a physical chess set: you legally own the chess set, whilst the copyright holder legally owns the computer version and only grants you a limited license. The GPL, copyleft, etc. provide a way for copyright holders (e.g. computer chess developers) to offer their wares in a way which is more like the physical chess set (e.g. if they feel like the default copyright is less ethical).

The second problem is that you're claiming things which Stallman has specifically stated he disagrees with, in public, well-documented places. For example, at https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html he specifically states (under "Non-free software issues"):

"However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing."

"Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then."

Also, Stallman has made it very clear that he doesn't care about proprietary code running inside devices if those devices aren't meant to be used as computers, e.g. like vending machines. From the same URL above:

"As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer."

Again, this makes perfect sense from the "things you own" perspective. If nobody can replace the firmware of a device, then you're not being excluded/oppressed. On the other hand, if a manufacturer can replace it but doesn't permit you to do so, then it becomes a Free Software issue. This was the case with TiVo: their devices ran on Linux, which the manufacturer provided source for as required by the GPL; but the device refused to run code which wasn't signed by the company's private key, which they didn't provide to customers.

> nor permit others to do so either because he hates proprietary licenses

That's absolute BS. Stallman has never said that others shouldn't be permitted to make or use proprietary software; it's an absurd straw man, which goes completely against his principles. He certainly asks people not to make or use it, but preventing people from doing so would defeat the entire point of FOSS!

If Stallman "had his way" then nobody would bother to make proprietary software, because users would choose to avoid it. Similar to how most people would avoid using software which e.g. blasted tortured screaming from the speakers during use, and hence nobody bothers to make software which does that. Yet nobody's being prevented from doing so.

PS: I admit that the "tortured screaming" analogy isn't very good, since adding such a "feature" wouldn't bring in extra money, like making something proprietary might. I originally wrote that sentence with an analogy to software being filled with advertising; it was only when I read it back that I realised some software actually does contain advertising, and people still use it! What about spying on the user? Nope, that happens. Being overpriced? Nope. Crashing? Nope. It seems like software users are willing to put up with a lot of crap!