So far, we can't even get Samsung to have their FOSS kernel stuff published in a buildable and usable form - its basically impossible to build their recent kernels with their recent toolchains without finding out that some obscure config option was skipped or that some file didn't survived the pre-release purge or that it requires some obscure Linux distribution to run on. And if you get it to build, chances that it will boot are slim. (Good luck finding out if there's a working UART somewhere on chip pins and it's not hidden behind hypervisor and fuses)
I know, but IF we mandate openness from the start with a public development process this could not exists or the company does not respect the law, if we do not, we will never get much usable things, "open source enterprise" and "open core" are nowadays common ways to profit from FLOSS being not FLOSS at all while formally respecting the license.
The problem to arrive at the laws is how many know enough to understand why we should and we must have such law, because if for most it's not even clear what is something you own vs something you can use via a proprietary remote service...
Physical ownership is a clear concept for most, digital ownership for most is a mystery... That's the damn issue.
