1. Not all the content of a warranty disclaimer holds in all legal jurisdictions. Giving people free stuff doesn't absolve you of liability for harm. Not everyone who uses some open source thing is aware of it; it may have been installed by someone else.
2. By open source having "more of a focus on getting paid", what I mean is that the term taken over and capitalized as Open Source by some people in the 1990' who wanted to distance themselves from the GNU project's rhetoric about freedom in order to emphasize the commercial viability of free software development. They formed something called the Open Source Definition. It's fair to call having more of a "focus on getting paid" than free software in the GNU sense.
3. Not all money for work on open source is donation. People working on it sometimes get regular salaries. Customers sometimes pay for it in the form of commercial products.
4. Chances are high that whoever you buy your phone from does kernel development. Just about the only way they could avoid it would be to license the SoC/board from someone else who does (and then they are almost certainly entitled to support).
2. By open source having "more of a focus on getting paid", what I mean is that the term taken over and capitalized as Open Source by some people in the 1990' who wanted to distance themselves from the GNU project's rhetoric about freedom in order to emphasize the commercial viability of free software development. They formed something called the Open Source Definition. It's fair to call having more of a "focus on getting paid" than free software in the GNU sense.
3. Not all money for work on open source is donation. People working on it sometimes get regular salaries. Customers sometimes pay for it in the form of commercial products.
4. Chances are high that whoever you buy your phone from does kernel development. Just about the only way they could avoid it would be to license the SoC/board from someone else who does (and then they are almost certainly entitled to support).