> Open source doesn't guarantee we have any type of control over it if the hardware is locked down

It can though. See: GPLv3.

IMO the greatest failure of Linux was not upgrading from GPLv2.

Linux has many more stakeholders than you. It’s a failure for you, but extremely important to many others (including me). I’d go further and allege you are in the minority among users of Linux, because think about what a user of Linux is. Linus made the absolutely correct call and Linux would be on the decline if he hadn’t; the money in Linux is in embedding (and SaaS), not people dabbling with free software who by definition don’t pay for it, and until the FSF and its adherents conquer the concept of “an economy” they’re still fighting an uphill, losing battle against the same economic forces they despite.

More than half of YC’s hardware startups, not to mention Android and probably Teslas in their current form, probably would have never happened were they not able to embed Linux in a controlled manner without having to invest in catering to the four total users who will want to build a system image and reflash the firmware on their whatever. (Android has some means to do so and an audience much more interested in doing so but the point stands.)

I’m also interested in the legal framework around a software license that’s able to dictate the architecture and design of components around the software, and I suspect it will not survive if challenged, particularly in Europe.

The greatest failure of free software, to me, is thinking in absolutes and not studying how the world actually uses computers as time goes on. The concepts, ideas, and demands are stuck in 1991 and are basically “man shakes fist at capitalism,” while writing capitalist exceptions into the very Tivoization clause in question under pressure.

> not people dabbling with free software who by definition don’t pay for it

You and I don't seem to share the same definition of Free Software. I personally pay for, and know others who pay for Free Software. Free is about freedom, not price.

> not to mention Android and probably Teslas in their current form, probably would have never happened were they not able to embed Linux in a controlled manner without having to invest in catering to the four total users who will want to build a system image and reflash the firmware on their whatever.

All they have to do is not go out of there way to lock down the ability to flash the firmware. It does not require extra effort to support this. It requires extra effort to block this.

> without having to invest in catering to the four total users who will want to build a system image

They have to release that code anyway. All they have to “invest” in is not implementing measures to prevent people using it.

This is a case of lack of enforcement, not a case of lax licensing. You do have this right under GPLv2 according to Conservancy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27937877.

Open source also doesn't guarantee any type of control if it's SaaS or anchored to a closed source SaaS system. There's a ton of "but it's open source!" SaaS companies that I shall not name that leverage open source but in reality are lock-in walled gardens. The code is open but the data and network effect are not.