Just one of many obvious examples that plenty of tools are available "allowing them the freedom to improve their lot." Nobody is stopping them, nobody is "keeping your users under your thumb". Improve your lot? do it yourself, or pay the engineers accordingly.

Oh, sure, Apple et al can change their minds and charge outrageous fees and demand outrageous licensing terms. Nonetheless, lots of affordable tools are available.

And before you take the opposing view any farther: I come from an era & mindset of building advanced computers from scratch. I reject the argument you offer of "by not giving them the source code you are [oppressing them]", because I'm trained in building computers starting from sand, and writing software starting with toggling in op codes with manual switches. I've written format converters (with no guiding documentation) to overcome the bounds you imply.

If you want someone to put in the effort to create complex software, maybe you should understand that they should be paid for that effort - one price to use it, and a higher price to get the detailed source code. If you're paying the price of a few cups of coffee to use it, heck yeah you're not getting the complete body of work a team spent years creating.

Rhetorical question: If nobody is stopping them, there is no harm in giving them the source code, right? So why don’t you?

> I've written format converters (with no guiding documentation) to overcome the bounds you imply.

Please do not assume that everybody should be like yourself.

> If you're paying the price of a few cups of coffee to use it, heck yeah you're not getting the complete body of work a team spent years creating.

There’s an easy way to rectify this – just don’t call it selling. Call it renting, which is what it practically is. The thing which I get when I buy software today is by no practical definition my property: its utility is deliberately limited by the manufacturer, and I am both legally and practically prohibited to extend that limit or repair it.