Sure, you can root your brain and install a custom firmware on it, but your eyes won't work unless you install the proprietary Google-Netflix-Microsoft-MPAA DRM blobs.
They can, but their very existence increases the Chromium engine's market share and therefore Google's control of the web, allowing them to do stuff like this. Once this is implemented in Chrome then these browsers will just become "Chrome but it can't play netflix/access bank websites/etc" or whatever.
Translation: It's proprietary "source available" software until January 2027, at which point it becomes free software and open source under the Apache 2.0 license.
The "only 5%" is what distinguishes it from Chromium, so it very much matters. And, that blog post is what I meant when I said they are actively hostile to the FS movement. Basically, they say users do not deserve the freedom to fork because competitors and Bad Guys can use it - very ironic for a product that is itself supposedly "95% based" on a competitor!
The argument that users should not have the freedom to fork because bad guys can use it is very similar to the idea that users should not have privacy or anonymity on the internet because it will be abused by bad guys (the so-called four horsemen of the infopocalypse).
Free Software refers to freedom, not price. This "free" is the F in FOSS. Paid free software is still free as in freedom and thus FOSS. Since the free software definition and the open source definition more or less overlap, very little is "OSS but not FOSS" even if it is paid.
"Smart" anything is something of a misnomer as the "smarts" are on some "cloudy" server far away. One can only hope that without the "cloudy" connection the thing will continue to function on a "dumb" level.
"Smart" "phones" are even more of a misnomer since they're basically pocket computers that happen to have a phone in them. I'll use them because they can be useful if they do what you want, but I don't install any proprietary apps.
I'd argue that Stallman's principal contribution to the world of technology was the GNU GPL and copyleft in general. Without that, neither Linux the kernel nor "Linux" the operating system would have taken off.
I'm specifically interested in those instances where Micay/GrapheneOS tried to pressure other projects to stop using their code, because this would indicate that GrapheneOS is not truly free (libre) software as it is believed to be. This image clearly insinuates that he used this type of threat against DivestOS and this post from TimSchumi (LineageOS team member) suggests it's a regular occurrence with them.
He also requested that Bromite remove all GrapheneOS/Vanadium related code, while he seems to walk that back later (and clarifies it's not a legal demand) he does threaten to change the license in his initial post here.
Free refers to freedom, not price. No part of "FOSS" has anything to do with money or price.