Systemd is Free Software no doubt but, it is vendor lockin. GNOME too. 
They are because:
1) systemd has absorbed many things like udev which are important for all distros into their own project. Thus you have to "extract" it. 
2) I would argue that you can't replace systemd on the fly. On gentoo you had specific use-flags for systemd to make things work. 
3) The Elogind situation. GNOME depends on systemd features for anything they want. Because of that GNOME makes it hell for other distros to use the environment without Systemd. 

Now I understand that you have the choice not to use systemd or GNOME. In the case of the first though you have to use obscure distros with specific flags and packages and hacks. Often behind on other packages which depend on it. The second one is kind of ironic that it is GNU in my opinion. Since they don't use many GNU tools anymore or even the acronym for that matter. The lock-in for GNOME is that they have a predetermined set of tools they want you to use. You can't pick and choose easily without advanced configurations.

Fannys.

Oct 14, 2019, 20:16 by psmith@gnu.org:

> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 18:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:13 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2019-10-14 at 12:07 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > > Perhaps we should divide free software into two groups: 1) Really
>> > > free software where Freedom 1 applies and 2) not-so-free software
>> > > where Freedom 1 does no longer applies.
>> > > 
>> > > Here gnome and systemd are in the second kind.
>> > 
>> > Both GNOME and systemd are fully free software that support all four
>> > freedoms, including freedom 1.
>>
>> Still, I think we need to differentiate between Really Free Software
>> and Not-So-Free Software. Maybe even to add one more freedom: For
>> example adding a, non-commercial, non-lock-in, non-proprietary, *NIX
>> and KISS-friendly, clause. Software development is nowadays too vendor
>> driven (and purposely made complicated), ruling out contributions from
>> people not employed by companies working full-time.
>>
>
> It's not clear (to me at least) what distinction you're hoping to make
> between "Really Free" and "Not-So-Free".  Perhaps you could provide an
> initial attempt at a set of criteria by which software would become
> "Really Free", and discuss why GNOME and systemd don't meet those
> criteria.  Until that happens I don't see what sort of reply RMS could
> give.
>
> Most likely such a discussion should be moved to gnu-misc-discuss: I
> don't think it belongs on either of the current two mailing lists
> until/unless there's an actionable outcome.
>
> For example, no aspect of either GNOME or systemd are proprietary,
> using the common meaning of the term.  Also, "lock-in" usually refers
> to software that prevents users from switching to an alternative; GNOME
> and systemd are certainly not lock-in.
> A non-commercial clause is directly opposed to the four freedoms (in
> particular freedom 0).  In fact a number of otherwise-could-be-free
> software licenses have been deemed non-free solely for this type of
> thing.  Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "non-commercial
> clause".
>
> I don't think it's appropriate to state that software that doesn't
> follow KISS can be considered non-free... how does one even measure
> that?  By whose definition is software not "simple"?  Many people would
> suggest that GCC, glibc, Emacs, or other flagship GNU packages are not
> "KISS".  Similarly, there's no concrete definition of "*NIX principles"
> that one can use.  Who will decide?  Again many people would suggest
> Emacs, with its "editor as an OS interface" construction, doesn't
> follow *NIX principles.  I don't see how these criteria can be used to
> measure software freedoms, other than by each person individually
> according to their own tastes.
>
> As with all free software, if someone feels that some software is not
> KISS (enough) or not *NIX (enough), they can avail themselves of their
> four freedoms and modify that software as they like, and distribute it
> to anyone else they like.
>