Your take is much stronger than that of the FSF. The FSF advocates for people to choose free software, and for governments to not force people to use non-free software. You say that non-free software (i.e., software for which you don't have the key) should be illegal. The FSF has never advocated for such an extreme viewpoint.
> You say that non-free software (i.e., software for which you don't have the key) should be illegal.
I don't think I'm saying that.
I'm saying that hardware sold to me should be usable by me without company approval. I should be able to unlock any bootloader/bios/flash that the vendor does as a part of normal repair or operation. Basically - if it has RAM, I should be able to write to it. If it has ROM the company flashes from outside the device - I should be able to flash it from outside the device.
In many cases you could simplify this to - I should have root access on any computing hardware that supports software with the concept of root access (and it's a surprisingly large amount these days)
I don't mind the company not sharing tooling or documentation. I certainly am not asking for non-binary source code. I think you should be able to sell software as a service just fine (I don't own that hardware, you do) - but I'm opposed to a company being able to intentionally sell a product that contains a cryptographic software lock that prevents the owner from later taking advantage of that hardware.
basically - I'm much softer on the requirements, but I'd prefer they be enforced.
Your take is much stronger than that of the FSF. The FSF advocates for people to choose free software, and for governments to not force people to use non-free software. You say that non-free software (i.e., software for which you don't have the key) should be illegal. The FSF has never advocated for such an extreme viewpoint.