An anonymous reader writes "As more companies adopt OSS for their hardware products we see more cases of abusive practices such as feature lock-down (e.g. tethering) and preventing installation of custom ROMs on mobile devices. Unlocking features comes at a premium and installing a custom ROM voids your warranty. Most OSS licenses guarantee that the source code remains open, but what is the point of modifying the source if you are not given build/installation instructions or can't legitimately use it under a service provider's contract? Have companies found an exploitable loophole that defeats the freedom that the license was meant to be protecting? Or is it that the OSS licenses never meant to protect against such cases?"