I know that people have criticized copyleft for decades as being unfree in some sense, and I suppose citing either FSF's definition or those derived from it would be circular in the sense that they were all written by people who assumed that copyleft was acceptable.
But those definitions are clear that the "right to run the program for any purpose" must not be restricted by copyright licensing terms, and that copyright licensing "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Neither of those are infringed by restrictions on further distribution. (In fact, even freeware licenses that prohibited redistribution entirely could be compatible with this specific rule.)
You might say that it was surprising or hypocritical not to have a corresponding freedom related to redistribution, which would then preclude copyleft licensing. The BSD projects have tended to act as though they recognized this additional rule (that it's important to allow sublicensing and not to attach the same conditions to derived works, including allowing the possibility that end users of derived works will get fewer rights). But even in this case, nobody has suggested that it was "free" or "open" to directly limit the purposes for which end users could run a program.