> If I am inferring correctly, the only thing that wouldn't count as locked down and walled garden by your definition would be a total open source design from Hardware to Software.
No. I'm totally fine with CPUs with fully open documentation and preferably designed by a company that specializes in CPUs. Open documentation + liberal license should allow other CPU manufacturers to compete based on the same ISA.
What I don't want is involvement of the vendor after I have bought my CPU (other than updates), or any kind of lock-in or dominance of one vendor for my ISA or dark patterns. Or drivers/updates that only work on a specific OS and thus are unusable if I decide to write my own OS for the CPU. Updates should be open (written in the language of the documentation) so the world can see if/where the company messed up.
No. I'm totally fine with CPUs with fully open documentation and preferably designed by a company that specializes in CPUs. Open documentation + liberal license should allow other CPU manufacturers to compete based on the same ISA.
What I don't want is involvement of the vendor after I have bought my CPU (other than updates), or any kind of lock-in or dominance of one vendor for my ISA or dark patterns. Or drivers/updates that only work on a specific OS and thus are unusable if I decide to write my own OS for the CPU. Updates should be open (written in the language of the documentation) so the world can see if/where the company messed up.