I have a FP5 too and the photos in daylight aren’t that much better. If you zoom a little bit you see the same kind of blurriness.
I’m not a good photographer and overall the quality is fine for my usage, but it’s still behind other phones in the same price range.

I mean, VW tried to blame poor quality software (aka a bug) for their abnormal emissions, before it was discovered it’s fully intended to cheat emissions testing.
I wouldn’t put it above Tesla to do the same here.

(sorry I took some time to come back to this) I’m not entirely sure the #5 of OSD would apply to the binary results (even though they are considered derivative work). GPL does restrict the license of the binary, but it seems MPLv2 allows licensing the binary differently as long as you don’t restrict the code further:

You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form under this License.

How can Firefox not be open source if its sources are under the MPL2 ?
It has always been the case that Firefox is a trademark and you can’t distribute it under that name. However if the code is open source the project is too.

They don’t even really look that good. A 3d printer could probably have similar output in an afternoon for less than 10 bucks of filament