> Yes unless the next projects of the now bankrupt creators is proprietary because it's too hard to make a living out of open designs?
Well this one already isn't open source, so the delta's not quite so large as that. (Source Available is better than proprietary, but Open Source it is not.)
> Many have been doing this for the last 30 years, during which user freedoms have shrinked: 20 years ago I had a working open source daily phone, an open design mips-based laptop that ran only free software, and all this was technically ahead of the competition; today I'm not allowed to login to some government website unless I use an apple or google device, community maintained distros are moribund and the free software movement became irrelevant. I believe more nuanced tactic than just "use that license" are called for.
Fair, allow me to iterate: Specifically, use copyleft licenses. If Linux were GPLv3, then you would be legally entitled to change your phone firmware.
Well this one already isn't open source, so the delta's not quite so large as that. (Source Available is better than proprietary, but Open Source it is not.)
> Many have been doing this for the last 30 years, during which user freedoms have shrinked: 20 years ago I had a working open source daily phone, an open design mips-based laptop that ran only free software, and all this was technically ahead of the competition; today I'm not allowed to login to some government website unless I use an apple or google device, community maintained distros are moribund and the free software movement became irrelevant. I believe more nuanced tactic than just "use that license" are called for.
Fair, allow me to iterate: Specifically, use copyleft licenses. If Linux were GPLv3, then you would be legally entitled to change your phone firmware.