Conversation

What community? Not aware of any community doing anything substantial in that regard. It's not a real thing, and if it was, they could fully review closed source libraries to the same extent and doing it with the same extreme care/depth is not substantially harder at that point.
2
> People review the Linux kernel Who reviews Linux kernel in anything but a very shallow and targeted way? > I won't ever give up my right to review and for others to review what they can. You have a right to inspect / review closed source software too.
2
And I don't really see what stops inspecting / reviewing in with the same care / depth. It's not even obfuscated in any way. If you took the alternate approach of getting official access to the sources, you give up your right to publish them, obviously not to review them.
1
But regardless, you're not really reviewing / auditing code, and there is not a community of people doing it. If there was, they wouldn't be blocked by only having compiled, unobfuscated libraries in some cases. As you're well aware there aren't even people interested in building
2
the substantial portions that are open source from source, let alone reviewing / auditing the code. If you wanted, you could use the open source device support code with a mainline kernel, for all the good that does you. Will have comparable functionality to what you talk about.
1
You won't get the same kind of security support, and you'll be much more on your own, but you won't have the same kind of pressure to migrate quickly and cope with the changes in the official device support code. Either way, hardware / firmware is still closed on ANY device.
1