Open source everything you're legally capable of open sourcing [duplicate]

The user-friendly UI is important to that, you're right. But Jolla already has hardware manufacturers. And you're right that no open-source group has accomplished it - which is why it'd be so valuable for Jolla to fix that problem by publishing the source.

@SirCmpwn: Ok, so, say I'm a hardware manufacturer. Say Jolla has published the source openly. So, why am I forking over a load of cash to Jolla? If I can just take the source and compile it for my hardware, I don't see why I need to involve myself with Jolla at all; I can just sell my devices directly to the public, with their software already on-board.

That's a reasonable argument, but again - Jolla already has manufacturers. Put an agreement in place to prevent this scenario. Another possibility is to choose a license that makes it difficult for manufacturers to put in proprietary binary blobs for their tablets, and then grant them exemptions.

@SirCmpwn: "Jolla already has manufacturers" -- what do you mean? Jolla is a software development company. Their business model is selling software to other companies. Selling devices is _not_ their business model; the Jolla phone and Jolla tablet are essentially prototype devices, not meant to be Jolla's actual bread and butter.

As I understand it, they are modeling themselves roughly like how Google sells Android -- sure, Google sells the Nexus devices under their own name, but they really make their money licensing Android to hardware manufacturers for their own use. Jolla may need to sell their own devices to get people interested and build brand awareness, but I doubt they can survive just by creating and marketing their own hardware. Jolla is not Nokia, after all.

I wasn't under the impression that they didn't want to sell their own hardware. Can you provide a source? If that were the case, it changes things somewhat but it doesn't change the fact that they can still make their software open source. Consider the second part of my comment: "Another possibility is to choose a license that makes it difficult for manufacturers to put in proprietary binary blobs for their tablets, and then grant them exemptions."

+1 It even don't need to be FOSS for me. Everybody can also invent a new license, not? So you could put in your license that you are not allowed to use the source commercial in a product, even not if modified. But selling the same under a commercial license also. Asia not is an argument, that the would not care about GPLv3 because the don't mind either to use the UI as a blob on their products or write a similar copy of it, work is cheap there. Important is the source for the user aka customer. I would not mind if I can chance the things on my product but I'm not allowed to compile it for others. For my part, I bought really expensive products because they was very comfortable, but privacy, security and control over my devices I value more, for that I purchase today devices they are open or tend at least to be more open then others. I recently bought a other tablet to get rid of the iPad, now I perked a tablet because it looked like Jolla will promise more open source with the tablet. I would also perk on indiegogo for open all parts on SailfishOS with €100. Maybe there are not so much people to do also. But if the would change the strategy, let's say the implement the best founded features first, and let's say there is a platform like TJC or even in TJC itself you can found a feature with 10-100€. I think a lot of customers will pay for there favorite feature. And there is ever something to improve. Software never is finished.