You seem to be pairing non-free with corporations/research entities and free with "random" hackers. That does not have to be the case. What is preventing those

You seem to be pairing non-free with corporations/research entities and free with "random" hackers. That does not have to be the case. What is preventing those research groups from releasing the source code for their devices (and preferably the hardware itself) under a free license? Why does the free version have to be created from supposed random hackers who may or may not have the resources to complete the project competently? There exist many free software projects that have been created by larger entities, even if the project was at first proprietary. At the very least, many corporations/research groups have contributed to existing free software projects --- the kernel Linux is one such example. OpenStack was released by RackSpace. Google created Chromium, Android and ChromeOS. Etc. This also demonstrates the problem of approaching this from the perspective of "open source". When considering this an ethical choice --- a choice of freedom --- it's not about creating a "better" piece of software. It's about creating software that respects our freedoms and, most importantly, understanding what the software that we have just put inside of our body is doing. Even if we do not have the resources to hack it, we can at least study it (Freedom #1). If we find a flaw and are unable to fix it, we can hire somebody who knows how to. We can then distribute those changes to our friends and neighbors who may have the same problems (Freedom #3). This is the perspective RMS is adopting. Not "open source".