The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions

The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions will certainly exist, but that's beside the point and I don't see the value in descending into the minutiae of the exceptions and consequently not being able to see the forest for the trees. Your view of your ideological opponents is very ungenerous. You accord it absolutely no merit, as it seems you deem it completely wrong and advocate for its banning outright. Instead I would urge you to understand why some people and organizations have un-nefarious reasons for making closed-source software. To put the burden of justification on them so that they can be allowed to do their own thing is, well, pretty unfair. You seem to operate with the assumption that your ideological opponents are objectively guilty. And I write this as an advocate for open source (a 100% personal and debatable belief, not an absolute moral claim): you are not being fair when you act like anyone making closed-source software has some obligation to prove to society that they're not being nefarious. You're seriously willing to punish everyone either legislatively or through a stigma because Vizio did something unethical? The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our society, and your arguments just casually trample all over it, as if it's settled and you're right by default.