When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free' date=' we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit.[/quote']
Under this logic it should be permissible to release a closed source program under a license that (in a legally defensible state) a) disallows anyone, including the originator, from releasing an updated version or derived work B) relinquishes the originator's write to copyright. This software is then legally equivalent to a ROM. I think most of us would agree that the utility of such a license would be inferior to your typical proprietary software where at least someone is capable of improving the thing.
Another example: rms is fine with people writing closed source software for private use. Rather, he considers any attempt to the contrary to be a violation of personal freedom. Under this system, an individual or corporation is free to develop software that greatly benefits mankind in some way, but the impact is greatly limited since that software is only used in that entity's endeavors. This is apparently considered more ethically permissible than releasing said software as proprietary but free to use. Some may argue that the software would quickly become unusable anyway since it can't be ported, but this is countered by hardware emulation.
These may seem like extreme edge cases, but that's the natural outcome of a philosophy that is extreme and absolute.
Now as for the implied question: can open source (not FSF's evangelism, just deciding to make a project open) ever have negative consequences? Implied because it's counter to your listing of some consequences from closed projects. I believe there really CAN be consequences, such as:
1) Diminished ability for commercialization. Because anyone else is freely allowed to take your work, which cost resources to make, and sell it for less. Sure, the same thing can then happen to them, although it probably reaches a breakdown point where it's not worth someone's time. Another side to this is it gives a lot of weight to marketing and other tricks. The point is, if you feel like your commercial viability is at threat then it'll be harder to pay to get software developed, and until capitalism is replaced with something else a lot of people will need to be paid to devote much time to something. Incidentally I think that non-commercial licenses can help deter this risk a bit; that is, the original copyright holders can sell the software (are not subject to the same license) but derived works can only give it out for free. This at least lowers the motivation to compete and makes it easier for money to go to the "right" place for those so concerned. But of course rms considers non-commercial licenses not Free and therefore unethical.
2) Lack of incentive towards centralized development. Of course the opposite is usually true; open source tends to encourage collaboration. But this isn't always the case - sometimes everyone wants to make their own releases (competing forks). These people may want credit and control that they get by making independent releases instead of trying to submit modifications to something central. And while the GPL makes all of the code in these releases visible it doesn't make it zero-cost to try to merge these changes, especially when you have a bunch of different implementations of the same thing and broken/incorrect/incomplete/useless code. Note this also extends to user involvement becoming scattered and confused. Testing and reports end up not going to the same place. Even in more benign cases like ports to other platforms you can end up spawning development branches that scatter the development effort and may take a long time to merge (or may never)
3) Potential for false sense of security. A big gimme of free software is that since the source is available you can't get away with doing malicious things with it. This relies on the assumption that people are actually carefully checking the source before running it (and that you trust these people, or that you yourself are doing it - which you probably aren't). Meanwhile, there's less time investment to bury malicious code into a fork of something than to make something proprietary that is useful enough on its own without the malicious part. Of course, the software CAN be inspected and probably inevitably will be, but if it's only after someone discovers it was doing something bad then it's pretty much moot. Also it ties into..
4) Free software licenses are difficult to enforce and make it a lot easier for someone to steal. In particular you can use the above example of putting in malicious code, pretending your software is non-derived, and by the time people realize it isn't it can again be too late. Being able to (illegally, of course, but in practical terms that isn't an absolute deterrent) release free software as pseudo-proprietary is arguably worse than writing new proprietary software, from a practical point of view. Of course you have to admit some potential for practical value to proprietary software to see it that way..
5) It makes it easier to find exploits and security vulnerabilities. Of course it then makes it easier to FIX exploits and security vulnerabilities, but sometimes you're in a position where it's difficult (or even impossible) to actually modify the code, or to get enough people to modify the code. While I'd still argue that the latter outweighs the former generally this doesn't always have to be the case.
Now, regarding the attacks on closed software. Certainly you can make a good argument that people would have been better off were it open/free. But that kind of likens to the argument that piracy is taking sales - the popular counter is, would the people pirating would have bought the software had they not been able to pirate? Likewise, if you prevented people from writing proprietary software, would they have written open/free software instead, or would they have just written nothing? Obviously there's some attachment that people and companies have to proprietary software, be it irrational/emotional or sensible, or the whole thing wouldn't have gone on like this. So it's hardly a given that attacking proprietary software leads to development of free software instead, at least in not every case. Some take the stance that the world is better off without proprietary software. They may believe that if the proprietary software weren't released a free alternative would have been released sooner. I disagree; a great many free software programs are based on proprietary software, you could easily argue that the proprietary software served as novel inspiration and accelerated the existence of the free alternatives.
Next step: secureboot, locking us away from using something else than Windows 8 on our own laptops and desktops. If some work-arounds may be possible, they will likely be complex and further push the boundaries for the usage of Free software.
If you are not concerned about Freedom now, there may be nothing left to be concerned about a few years down the road once you don't have any choice anymore.
Slippery slope mentality is a good way to manipulate people into acting on fear. Sure, our stance may not be ideal, but it's a lesser evil and it's either us or them, one must dominate. Can you really make a compelling empirical argument that in a few years your "Freedom" could be completely eradicated?
There have always been closed devices and open devices and this keeps shifting back and forth as the market sways - but IMO stays somewhat in equilibrium (there's a similar emerging equilibrium between different distribution models and copyright restrictions). Phones, tablets, and game consoles today are in general more open than phones, tablets, and game consoles in the past. That's for the mainstream options. The markets have opened up a lot and there are plenty of fringe devices that strive for free development. The x86 version of Windows 8 isn't using secure lock. The ARM version (not called Windows 8, btw) is, basically mirroring companies that have already been locking the OS on tablets. It's not a new precedent. It could be new for ARM laptops and desktops using Windows 8. But it could also be a barrier of entry to Windows 8 in successful ARM laptops and desktops, as if it didn't have barriers already. If the market responds by only making Windows 8 options, unilaterally, and therefore making it the de facto option you can complain. Otherwise I think you're over-stepping necessary bounds by calling out Windows 8 locked tablets as an attack on your Freedom when you can buy other devices that aren't locked.
The ability to run your own software on a device, much less replace the operating system, isn't really equivalent to the FSF's goals anyway. And we've already seen that FSF basically condones non-modifiable closed code, seems to me that secure boot fits fine with that part of "Freedom" if no one can ever change the OS..
...
