I think the case of JavaScript makes the ideology of the FSF very clear. To me, closed source source software running in a sandbox is not a problem. The probl

I think the case of JavaScript makes the ideology of the FSF very clear. To me, closed source source software running in a sandbox is not a problem. The problem arises when (a) binary blobs that might do literally anything with your machine, are the only way to get certain things done, or (b) all hardware/software is so locked down that it is infeasible for anyone to do any hardware/software work without the blessing of the people in control of the hardware/software. But to the FSF, the ability to modify and see the source code for software is fundamental, even when (a) and (b) don't apply. Perhaps they see opposing all non-free software as a kind of prophylactic measure. But I'm inclined to take them at their word that they care about "freedom" for its own sake. I wish they would drop the word, because what they are really arguing is that their notion of freedom is important. I get sick of their debating tactics which end up with saying "oh you don't have to use free software. But you wont' be free [by our definition]". I've never seen a convincing argument for why sandboxed closed source software is a bad thing.