Charles Cossé wrote:
I get the feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief that the freedom being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a universal truth or moral oblication.
Software freedom is an ethical issue for the free software movement. This is one of the defining characteristics of this social movement and one of the things that distinguishes it from the younger, proprietor-friendly, right-wing business reactionary group called "open source" which talks about a developmental methodology in an attempt to speak more to business interests by way of developers.
But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual takes, isn't there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean "freedom to license ones software however one pleases"?
You need to catch up on what discussions have been going on for the past few decades. This issue is well-covered in https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html. In short, no, licensing is not a freedom it's a power.
You could also listen to any of the FSF representative's speeches given over the past 20+ years many of which are archived at https://audio-video.gnu.org/ in formats that favor free software.
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line? Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright?
There are distinctions to be made between generally-useful scientific knowledge, artistic & political expression, and information about personal lives. Many speeches at the location I've already pointed to cover this. In the context of this thread about cars, an ethical arrangement would be one where the car owner has complete corresponding source code to their car and that software is free software. This arrangement, had it existed for the owners of VWs and other makes, probably would have prevented the scandal where VW (and others) cheated environmental testing. So we know what power proprietary software allows automakers to get away with -- "proprietary software in cars is at least equally, if not more, dangerous" as Brad Kuhn said in http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/08/13/does-not-kill.html.
We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one type. It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.
You should reconsider your use of the word "closed" instead preferring "proprietary" or "non-free" because they're clearer and refer to software issues that existed well prior to open source. These terms also make no reference to open source, and that's appropriate because you're discussing the very thing that open source wants to avoid (software freedom) and distinguishing along a line that open source doesn't want to distinguish -- whether computer users are free to run, share, inspect, and modify the software on their computers or not.
Open source doesn't mind proprietary software because for them this issue comes down to a developmental methodology which means they might ask for permission to develop the software too, but if they don't get that permission they're fine endorsing whatever a proprietary software business says should be endorsed (see recent announcements of Microsoft's proprietary software running on GNU/Linux systems for recent examples). This is why proprietary software businesses like open source; putting a shine on preserving user subjugation is much like businesses that want to come off as environmentally-friendly but don't want to make any substantive changes in what they do so they engage in what's known as "greenwashing". "The appearance of doing the right thing is eventually more important than doing the right thing." as Brad Kuhn pointed out when discussing this similarity in his talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA calling open source "openwashing". Both the older https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html and newer https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html essay also address how denying a user's software freedom is entirely compatible with open source but not at all a part of the free software movement.
Unfortunately the only current source I know of for Kuhn's talk is YouTube. I recommend using "youtube-dl" to download and see it so you can avoid Google's proprietary code, tracking, and specify the format you want. http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Consi... used to work but appears down now.
Taking the case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the developer then give-away their intellectual property.
Copyrights, patents, mask rights, and other grants of power exist. These various grants of power last for different times, cover different things, and cost different amounts of money to obtain and enforce, so there are more factors separating them than uniting them. Therefore mashing them together (as the term "intellectual property" does) doesn't convey that you understand what you're talking about. Consider adding https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty to your reading list.