I don't think it's that bad. It's not entirely open source, no, it's proprietary software on top of open source. The same is true of Android phones running Google Services. I'll note the EULA for the hardware doesn't seem to indicate you can't run other operating systems on it, but I am not a lawyer so YMMV. They've separated the EULAs for the hardware sales from the EULA for the software you can download. Makes sense to me, and is actually more liberal and easier to read than other EULA's I've read. Could it be more open? Of course, especially to allow the use of the product brand name with other third-party software, to open the device up more, and support more open uses. To me the real question will be if business and enterprise customers end up demanding code signing restrictions to the point where it becomes a cloud-managed device with a closed boot loader, like Chromebooks or iOS. Hopefully like Chromebooks, or Android, they'll still preserve a mode where you can turn off those features if you want to run third-party software and have the authority to do so. But they're not a charity, it's not completely open hardware, they're trying to build a business, at scale, and openness is one of their strategies, just not their only one.

What about it is BS? It's 100 pages shorter and less weird than most other EULAs I've seen. (Probably because EULAs are basically unenforceable in Norway)

Care to explain what's bullshit about it?