>I understand. For example, if I am absent from the vote of the parent representatives in my son's class (my decision not to go, therefore doing nothing for or against), then I do not cast my vote and must therefore be satisfied that others have had a say for me. Utilizing my participation potential is an action, just as not utilizing it is an action (omitted decision).

Exactly.

>This is truly difficult to investigate. The question is: where does the dependence lie and what kind of dependence do we talk about? Can you give an example?

Dependency reduces freedom, and I am speaking in the strictest sense of the word "dependence", since if you depend on something or someone to do this or that action, then you also depend on that something or someone allows you to do such a thing.

To depend is to need another, and if you need another to do something, you can not do that without the other, therefore, it does not depend solely on you, and therefore, again, you are not free to do that, since you need the approval of another.

When there is mutual dependence, both need mutual approval, therefore, both cooperate. When one party depends on the other, it needs to win the favor of the one on which it depends.

Although there is always a margin, even a very slight one, of freedom, in the same way that one cannot be totally free, freedom cannot either, it is impossible, be totally absent.

>Regarding "license": When I have the freedom to ignore a license because I just can afford not to use something which the license is about, I still have a certain amount of freedom, hence, can pick alternatives.

You're right, but that's an apparent freedom, it's an illusion of freedom, because if to do something I need someone's permission first (license), then I'm not free to do that, I have no free way to choose to do that when I want it, much less, but on the contrary, I can only do it when they (the authority) allow me, and after they let me, I'm free to do it or not, but only after they let me.

>One must develop some negotiation skills in order to stretch freedom to the most possible amount.

I would say that if you must negotiate with another to stretch the freedom, then it is not freedom, but it's license, because you need the permission of another, which you get through negotiation.

Both someone who has freedom and someone who has a license can do what they want to do, the difference is that the one who has freedom acts on the basis of his will, since he does not need anyone's permission, and the one who has a license acts on the basis of the will of another, since he needs precisely the permission of another to do what he wants.

The one who has a license is only "free" after they give him the license, but before, and if they don't give it, it's not free, therefore, the license is not true freedom.