I don’t mean to say, that you are wrong.
But they strive to be fair, and admit, that they still have a long way to go.
Up to now, they are fairer towards the workers in the mines and factories. And they are fair to customers insofar, that they published a list of suppliers and a cost-breakdown for the FP1 and 2 by now.
They support research on fairer electronics and the community developing open software. While they sure are way off from perfect, they are - in my opinion - on a good way.
And - to be honest - it’s beyond me, that Fairphone is criticised that much for this point. Should they fail to publish the source-code for, let’s say, six months, I start singing with this choir, but right now, I still consider this a minor issue.
But that’s just my own perception and assessment of course.
And a device whose manufacturer respect the work of the programmers from whose work he benefits free of charge to earn money.
That is just abiding the law, something everyone should do. But you don’t have the binaries, so you’re not entitled to get the source either. On top of that, who has requested the source?
I started the toppic and i have a FP3 and therefore the binaries, but no source.
However not having the binaries yourself does not make arguments, that people who have the binaries should get the source, less valid.
Did you ask for the source code?
I did yesterday, including access to a full image so one can fall back…
People who think they are righteous tend to be really unforgiving… We should give FP a chance to react, especially if the rom is not built by them and the source code comes from a 3rd party…
The discussion is turning in circles.
My original questen was just where the sources are uploaded. Turns out nowhere atm.
Then the fact was stated that this is technical illegal.
And then people where discussing if this is a trival offence or not. (We have a extra word in german for it “Kavaliersdelikt”).
Nobody was talking about “LET’S SUE THEM!!1” so all we do while discussing the problem here is giving FP a chance to react.
And react they should - Yoda. >IF< GPL violations are brought to court it can be very damaging to companies. https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases
But you don’t have the binaries, so you’re not entitled to get the source either.
You are very smart, thanks for informing me. But I know that already. 
I have ordered a FP3, asked for the sourcecode one month later and canceled my order after then. I wont buy a FP3 with it as long as there is no source code. There is a two week return period in Germany for Mail order, after that the FP3 may be expensive electronic scrap if there is never source code.
That’s a bit harsh, isn’t it?
It is still doing what it is built for. And for the vast majority of users the source code is nothing but word-salad.
Not, that you should not get access to the source code, but this “all or nothing” attitude teaming up with a kind of claim of absolutness is a bit over the top for my liking.
For now, but FP wants to support the FP3 for 5 years. After that the community could take over but only if the source and the binary blobs are available in a compileable form.
And isn’t that part of FP’s philosophy. Making the phone as long lived as possible?
First of all, I was generally speaking, and not just with regard to the FP3.
Just because some people will no longer like to use an outdated phone, doesn’t make it scrap.
E.g.: here around there is a Fairphone 1 (first batch) happily used, though it’s still on Android 4.2.
To you and others the outdated OS might render it useless.
But just take note and accept, that not everyone shares this view on things.
And once more:
I am sure, that FP will publish the sourcecode sometime soon.
I never meant to imply, that they wont or are not willing to do so. So, please don’t argue along that line.
Everyone has a different focus. For me, the security/ privacy of my data and private messages is the most important thing about a smartphone. To do this, I need updates for new vulnerabilities, there is FP1 no way. The support for my current smartphone runs out in the near future. My focus is on my privacy and the and after then the ability to do whatever I want with the device. For this I need an open system. If I can get a sustainable one, I buy it of course first.
The company Fairphone is unfair(!) to the people who developed the code earlier for the general public and the customer. I hope FP will get sued if they do not publish it. If they didnt buy source code from the programmer, they did it wrong. They also knew it before that they were behaving illegally. Also that they release the device without source code, it is ok for me one or two month later. But the FP3 is not the first FP, there is no excuse anymore.
Surely, they will release the source code within the first year as they did with FP2. What we are dealing with is a fundamental trust issue. You believe they won’t. I believe they will (based on previous behavior). If you really do not believe they will release the source code, and you own a Fairphone 3, I recommend you to 1) sell the device and buy something else 2) sue Fairphone in small claims court.
The primary goal of Fairphone is the physical sourcing of the product. It isn’t a FOSS dream come true. For that, there are different options. There’s the PinePhone, and there’s Librem 5.
Also, don’t forget you need firmware updates for all the embedded chips. These are proprietary in nearly every device (except in Librem 5). If Qcomm decides they don’t support a SoC anymore that means no more updates. Which is a security hazard. For example, the baseband (LTE modem) has complete memory access to the system, as it is shared. Therefore, it has root.
As do I! 
see the bold text above though. What I wrote to @Matombo also counts for you.
I hope it too, otherwise I dont write in this forum. 
this
The binary blob issue. Saddly the librem 5 is not ready yet and my old phone died 2 month ago.
And some open source is better than no open source. (the fp itself is only partly fair traid, but that is still better than no fair trade)
With regards to binary blobs you’re able to apply pragmatism.
Would you be able to apply a dose of pragmatism on the fact that source is not available during the whole lifetime of the device? Specifically, the start of its birth?
Like i said, all i do while discussing here is giving time for FP to answer my e-mail and give an offical statement on the current situation.
Nothing so far and i start to get worried.
From my pont of view, waiting of course. But how long wait? Maybe six month, or one year…? (Apart from that, I don’t buy FP3 as long as it’s not google free.)
If my curent phone runs out of support, and FP is not ready for me, I think I buy a device from the /e/ store: https://e.foundation/e-pre-installed-refurbished-smartphones/
Pro:
- Absolutely environmentally friendly, buying used phones is much better than buying a new Fairphone.
- Support an open source ecosystem.
Con:
- I like the idea of Fairphone very much. I want to support it. I dont blame FP for the FP1, it was a huge step.
- Not so easy to repair/ spare parts.
Worried why? Their helpdesk is probably overburdened. The employees get a Dutch wage; not a Chinese or Indian one.
Yes, /e/ is a commendable alternative.
However it is much easier for laymen to tamper with a second hand smartphone, and the chance the binary blobs get out of date is also increased.
I’m not aware these source code dumps lead to reproducible binaries on smartphones (so with Android). If you distrust Fairphone, and are afraid they tossed in some backdoors in their binaries, then them releasing some source code isn’t going to take the distrust reasonably away.
You can make it Google-free as it is. All you’ll have to do is disable a bunch of packages, and ideload F-Droid or Aurora Droid. Be aware Google is co-author of AOSP. If they have nefarious intentions, surely they’ve put loads of backdoors and vulnerabilities in the source code, or in the binaries…
E.g. take care of DNS, and don’t forget the connectivity check for captive portals in wlans with a login page. And what else.
Besides, how trustful are the apps one is installing?