It's almost as if the author does not even understand that all Javascript source that is run in the browser can be viewed and that additional source downloaded via XHR is the same. The reasoning in this article and the original Stallman piece is lame.

I think the point the author wants to make is that the possibilities opened up by more powerful JavaScript engines lure people into ever more feature laden web apps, which are mostly closed source. It's not about the JavaScript code itself I believe. That's how I read it but I could be wrong.

My own view is that open sourcing end user apps is pointless in the first place. Open source should be about sharing low margin, foundational code among developers, who can reuse it and learn from it.

Giving away finished applications to end users or competitors leads to a situation where software development has to be subsidised by consulting, support or ad revenue.

I think that's ultimately bad for the quality of software as the interests of users and developers tend to drift apart. Simple software becomes a drag on consulting and support revenues and the main purpose of software is no longer to solve a problem, but to make users click on ads.