What's more, you're creating something of a conundrum here, without actually taking into consideration the metaphysical forces at play. If he doesn't give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault since he predetermined what they would do. If he does give people free will, and they do evil, it's his fault because he let them. Bit of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', to pardon the pun. From what I know, Heaven/happy afterlife isn't perfect, it's just better. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, it is yours.
That's a pretty false dichotomy. He's damned either way because, either way, he's allowing evil. He could, you know, have people not do evil, especially in the situation of "doesn't give people free will," but even in the other situation, humans DO have tendencies. Like we have a tendency to shun the outgroup/strangers, or a tendency to not eat babies. He could change those to be less evil-tending.
So yes he's damned either way cuz there's still evil. It's not the free will that's the problem, it's the evil causing! V:
Also: The world doesn't have to be perfect for it to be a HELL of a lot (puns!) better than it is now. Case in point: Harlequin babies. Most of you know not to google that, but a world without such a disease would be marginally better than ours which does have them. Still not perfect, but better. Worms that lay eggs in your eyes or veins, putting people in areas of the world with vastly different opportunities for development, thereby indirectly causing genocide and slavery (Europe vs Australia vs the America vs Africa, a la Guns Germs and Steel), peanut allergies. All of these are further examples of the same principle.
A lot of shit that just doesn't need to be that, were he just to go "You know what, let's NOT have peanut allergies!" would be fixed with no impact on humans beyond preventing needless suffering.