"Let it be said: your editor does not believe that "respect your freedoms" includes hiding information about available options. Free software should be able to win on its own merits; it doesn't require attempts to create ignorance about proprietary alternatives. Viewing users as needing to be "steered" in the right direction does not seem respectful."
Interesting - the implication here (as far as I can tell) is that, in the author's opinion, the FSF's criteria actually make the device less free. Ironic - i.e., in the opinion of some FOSS advocates', FSF's criteria for open hardware results in hardware that is not truly open.
I agree with the main points of the article (essentially that the FSF is going too far in their requirements), but I'd need to think on the above (that the criteria makes the hardware less open) for at least a day - IMO, it's a rather shocking idea.
[Headline: "FSF pushes policies that promote non-free hardware" :-)]