I have re-read the post many times and I don't quite get the point. The first example is not FOSS because of its license. There are loads of examples like that

I have re-read the post many times and I don't quite get the point. The first example is not FOSS because of its license. There are loads of examples like that. I don't see how it relates to the complexity of build systems or how it affects freedoms. The obfuscation point is kind of interesting. I'm guessing a minified JavaScript file does not count as open source even if it is distributed with the correct license because it's been transformed by a machine. If you hand wrote some obfuscated JavaScript I'm guessing it's fine. You could argue the end result is the same, or how can you tell it's not hand written, and you'd be right. Then it goes on to talk about upstream and what not, but I don't get what the point is. Then the last paragraph talks about forcing software to be audited and enforcing regulation. To me, this is the epitome of anti-free software. Now you can no longer run whatever program you want and instead only what <someone>(your OS vendor? The government?) wants you to run.