Steve Jobs is not quite topical to what I said.
I don't think of what RMS does as oppression, but more as 'toughlove'. Not for everyone, sure, but I think it's mischaracterised as oppression. He's more interested in having you be principled than using his products, and only his products.
If you can argue with logic that your viewpoint does not conflict with his axioms, I'm sure he would find it agreeable. It's not oppression, since there is no compulsion, but RMS tries his darndest to promote what he sees is right, and he seeks to have a logical reasoning behind everything.
Jobs was very, very much about doing things 'my way or the highway'. He was very much against people using options he didn't sanction.
EDIT: To be clearer, Jobs' rhetoric is "we offer an alternative", but the actions of Apple under Jobs was very much about crushing ideological opponents, much like RMS would like to do.
This isn't rocket science.
Stallman desires to take away my choice to create (and implicitly, to use) software that doesn't meet his ideological vision of "Free" software. I reject that desire in toto; I do not presume to tell other developers of software what restrictions they may place upon software they right, just as I reject their attempts to do the same to me.
(Stallman's inability to fulfill his desire does not exculpate him from the moral failure of that desire.)
My biggest gripe with Jobs was his "I know what's best for you" mentality.
Your criticisms of Stallman can equally be applied to Jobs. The user has to 'adjust their tastes' - to take on part of the Apple ecosystem means you have to take on all of it. Like gaming? Not on Apple. The user has to 'adjust their tastes' and play a limited subset of available games. Oppressive and disrespecting? Apple tried to make it illegal to jailbreak your own phone!