In regard to those numbered items:
-
Purism is a for-profit company who has also specified a “social purpose.” It is still a for-profit company. It has never filed the required annual “Social Purpose Report”.
-
The delivery has been a fiasco in terms of both “timeline” as well as honoring their promised refund requests. This is well known in the “Linux Communities”. See Louis Rossmann’s two videos on this.
-
To be clear, although their mainboard is open, the phone is based on an SoC and the SoC is proprietary. Also, it should be noted that the firmware for the Cellular Modem and the Wifi card is not open (it is proprietary). [And, in that regard, one should note that the phone has not (yet) been certified RYF]. I should note that in these regards, much of this is true for the Pinephone [with the exception that the schematics for the Pinephone(s) are available for inspection but they are not Free]. In terms of the “Linux Community”, the Pinephone and Pinephone Pro offers the same sort of Linux opportunities as the Librem 5 and for much less money.
I think you have a misunderstanding of how software development works in the FOSS world. These are all “upstream” projects in regard to the Librem 5. It’s not “upstream’s” responsibility to reach downstream to help out Purism. It’s downstream’s responsibility (e.g. Purism and others) to work with “upstream” to try to incorporate changes in. I will say that Purism has done a decent job of working with the kernel upstream and the GTK upstream. That said, any problem you have mentioned is not a problem with upstream, it’s a problem with downstream.
e.g. “Crimson” is a distribution codename, not a kernel. It is made/released by Purism and is based on a Debian release/distribution (I believe it was based on Debian “Bookworm”). That codename has nothing to do with a “kernel team”. It is 100% Purism’s responsibility.
e.g. Why do you claim that “LibreOffice doesn’t want to include L5 in their developments”? It’s the responsibility of Purism and/or L5 supporters to make contributions to make LO more usable on the L5, not the other way around. Not only that, the windowing toolkit on LO needs to be able to support Linux, Windows, and iOS … IMO it will not be an easy thing to make it (VCL) compatible with libhandy (LO has their own toolkit which wraps GTK, Windows, and iOS toolkits). And, again, that isn’t their responsibility … it’s the responsibility of the people wanting the change.