I'm not really sure how your point applies to the current discussion...
Well, the FSF philosophy of "Software wants to be Free" is a blanket which applies to all software, even when it makes no sense to apply that philosophy. As I pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, there's really no difference between cloning an operating system from open code and cloning a software platform from an open api. Philosophically, however, RMS deems the open API clone to be morally wrong in this case, because the API is controlled by Microsoft.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of grey areas which this black and white philosophy doesn't really fit. Finally (before I butt out!) the End User of a nuke system isn't necessarily the owner of that code, but your stipulation of "wanting the ability to be absolutely certain of where it[the nuke] will go when they push that Big Red Button" would probably be covered by a restrictive "non-Free" licence.
If you're properly rewarded (compensated) for the creation of your program, what right do you have to impose additional restrictions on me, the end user?
You, the end user, may not be the owner of the software in question. In that case, I have every right to stop you from fiddling with the naviagtion software for my nukes, or the avionics software in my aircraft, or the transactional software in my payment settlement system.
I guess the difference is that Gnash guys hate Flash with passion, whereas Miguel & friends recommend the technology they work with as reasonable choice for new development.
So, Gnash is OK because the developers hate Flash because it's proprietary to Adobe? This whole thing is truly laughable. I don't see how reverse engineering a platform from an openly published API spec is any different to reverse engineering an operating system by reading and understanding its source code. Maybe Stallman really did hate UNIX after all.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker