The Free Software Foundation (FSF) last week launched a campaign against Microsoft Corp.’s upcoming Windows 7 operating system, calling it “treacherous computing” that stealthily takes away rights from users.

At the Web site Windows7Sins.org, the Boston-based FSF lists the seven “sins” that proprietary software such as Windows 7 commits against computer users.

They include: Poisoning education, locking in users, abusing standards such as OpenDocument Format (ODF), leveraging monopolistic behavior, threatening user security, enforcing Digital Rights Management (DRM) at the request of entertainment companies concerned about movie and music piracy, and invading your privacy.

“Windows, for some time now, has really been a DRM platform, restricting you from making copies of digital files,” said executive director Peter Brown. And if Microsoft’s Trusted Computing technology were fully implemented the way the company would like, the vendor would have “malicious and really complete control over your computer.”

The result is that Microsoft could do things like Amazon.com, which last month went into customers’ Kindle e-readers and deleted illegally-sold copies of novels such as George Orwell’s 1984 , he said.

“This is treacherous computing,” Brown said.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The group, best-known for overseeing the General Public License (GPL) used by most open-source software, including Linux , will hold a rally at noon in Boston Common, where it will unveil a 12-foot-tall art installation depicting Windows 7 “being trashed,” Brown said.

The group is also sending a letter (available at the group’s Web site) to top executives at Fortune 500 companies that argues their companies would benefit ethically, technically and, in the long-term, financially, from switching away from Windows and Microsoft Office to free alternatives such as Linux and OpenOffice.org.

Founded in the mid-1980s by hacker-activist Richard Stallman , the FSF argues that free software and source code is a moral right. It takes pains to distinguish itself from the open-source movement, which advocates sharing of source code but tolerates charging for software.

Both groups, however, view proprietary software vendors such as Microsoft, Adobe Systems Inc., and Apple Inc. as the enemy, Brown said.

Even with DRM, users running Windows PCs still maintain more freedom and privacy than those who foolishly use cloud computing services such as Google Docs and store their data there.

“That is the ultimate giving-away of your freedom,” he said. “That’s not a software freedom issue, it’s a stupidity issue.”

While Brown acknowledges that many Fortune 500 companies base their businesses around proprietary business models similar to Microsoft, he also points out that most of them, at least regarding software, are more consumer than vendor.

“Large corporations spend an awful lot of money on software. They face numerous software audits and more vendor lock-in than you or me,” Brown said. “Do you think they would rather be driving on a freeway, or always be paying on toll roads?”

“I’m not expecting an instant wave of companies switching off XP to Linux,” he said. “But we would like get that debate going. Hopefully, some will re-evaluate and say no to Windows 7.”

With the arrival of the Bing search engine and the Microsoft-Yahoo search partnership, it’s been a hectic summer for search — not that you’ll see market leader Google sweating.

With a united front building against its cash cow search business, Google is playing it cool.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt said back in June about Bing: “I don’t think Bing’s arrival has changed what we’re doing. We are about search, we’re about making things enormously successful, by virtue of innovation.” For the most part Google is ignoring Bing, at least publicly. Google has not made any outward strategic moves that imply worry about Bing or the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership, other than to state that it’s bad for innovation and competition.

Indeed, the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership will face the scrutiny of antitrust regulators and some experts question whether the partnership will be approved.

But if the partnership does pass legal muster, the search wizards in Mountain View will have a legitimate threat on deck. Microsoft has the money ($100 million is being spent on Bing marketing) and Yahoo has the users (98 million Yahoo Mail users in the United States, four times as many as Gmail). Both companies have the technology.

Google’s plan, according to an upcoming Time magazine feature story, is to keep on innovating in search and let Microsoft mass market the heck out of Bing. But here are three reasons why quietly innovating may not be enough to keep the tenacious Microhoo at bay.

Microsoft Has Deep Pockets and Dogged Commitment to Search

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has made it clear that Microsoft’s foray into search is not a flirtation, it’s a marriage. He said at Bing’s launch in late May: “Bing is an important first step forward in our long-term effort to deliver innovations in search.”

Microsoft has said that it plans to spend 5 to 10 percent of its operating income on search over the next five years, a number that works out to be roughly $10 billion per year.

From the outset, Microsoft pointed all its guns at Google with Bing, working to make its interface warm and colorful and structure its search results into categories, as opposed to Google’s minimalist interface and long list of links. The subsequent $100 million ad campaign for Bing has focused on how it is more organized and user-friendly than Google.

So far, Microsoft’s investment in Bing has paid off. In June and July, Bing’s market share increased nearly a full percentage point, from 8.0 percent to 8.9 percent.