He parsed that (ambiguous, I agree) section like that because of the "or other types of open source code" section, and because the word "version" (or similar) w

He parsed that (ambiguous, I agree) section like that because of the "or other types of open source code" section, and because the word "version" (or similar) was not included. Had it instead said: *"they typically run Linux versions that are woefully out of date."* or *"they typically run versions of Linux or other operating systems that are out of date."* then there would not be a problem. Since the real problem is out of date software, not the license that software happens to have, mentioning the license makes it sound like the author is blaming the license (a problem that is made worse by not including some "version" wording). Considering the awkwardness of the phrase "other types of open source code" (what do we mean other "types"? Other licenses? Other languages? I don't think they intend either of those, what they mean is other projects, not types), I have to assume that the author did not intend any sort of slight and this is just a misunderstanding. They probably included the "other types of open source code" section because that is frankly what is common with these sort of devices. It is an incidental detail that got confused with the point because the author is not as precise with the language surrounding this topic as we are.