There needs to be a constructive debate about incrementally improving this situation. Instead of "I hate that processor" or "wait for my radical SoC I've just started designing", people need to help find products that uphold software freedom and privacy while also being usable (obtainable, for the most part) for small libre hardware projects. And there needs to be an appreciation that this work is not meant to create the "toy of the month" - a gadget that is fun for a while and then stashed away somewhere - but instead to build an environment where we shouldn't be constantly needing to urgently figure out what kind of hardware we can use that uphold our values.
I'm too uninformed on hardware design to be able to say much, but I find that in the discussions I've seen it boils down to :
- identifying components (chips) that are not encumbered by GPL-violations, proprietary drivers, tivoization, DRM, or signature verfication not controllable by the user.
- establishing enough of a relationship with the chip vendors to obtain:
- datasheets and technical info (in principle without NDAs, I don't know if there are "light" NDAs that might be acceptable, but I think not)
- software, like drivers or firmware, under free licenses (ideally mainlined).
- the needed quantity of chips at an affordable enough price.
I wonder if it would be conceivable to create some institution that defines some clear criterium for components procurement, possibly some criteria for libre hardware projects served, and continually investigates the market and then pools demand from different libre hardware projects to increase order quantities. It might also pool access to production facilities like PCB manufacturing or the like, but I find that harder, because the designs are going to be different, so manufacturers possibky won't offer better deals just for bringing a bunch of smallish different jobs.
You could add here more off-topic-here but important requirements such as labour conditions, conflict-free minerals, responsible tax behaviour, carbon impact, corporate social responsability, etc.
If achievable this might help libre hardware projects overcome some of the price and availability problems, and could also help concentrate driver mainlining and software efforts to a less diverse set of components so that one can hope for better support. Better support should lead to more sales for the component manufacturer (to the institution partners or other customers) and could progressively improve the institution negotiating margin. It might also encourage libre hardware projects to collaborate earlier in the design phase instead of publishing the design at the end when it is ready for production.
The institution could be a more formal organisation with legal entity, budget and ability to enter into contracts or could be some wiki somewhere where different tinkerers commit different efforts as best they can and finally any pooling of demand depends on the trust among the participants.
But I repeat, it is surely easier said that done and there are probably hundreds of reasons unknown to me that make it inviable or very unlikely. And even if possible, it'd still take someone to start it. Or maybe it even has been tried and I haven't heard of it.