SpaceX is similar while they are very successful it also encourages competition in a space that really needed it and now there are so many other companies doing smaller launches that don’t make business sense to SpaceX.
The Cost-plus contracts have made them fat and lazy and somewhat remind me of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where the cats don't mind the mice emptying the fridge.
NASA is taking a small risk, but the rewards can, as SpaceX has demonstrated, be HUGE.
It's RISC-V itself that has a permissive license, allowing anyone to make an implementation open or closed source.
That's a huge limitation. It's unfortunate that RISC-V allows for closed implementations (IP) and also closed ISA extensions.
It is rather fortunate. Else, it couldn't possibly aspire to be the standard ISA for absolutely everything.
Someone, somewhere may eventually form a coalition to pay TSMC or Samsung to generate an in-house spec for a high-performance RISC-V processor with an open-source license on the hardware design, too. Some places use RISC-V in products where the processor is another line item in the BOM and not the centerpiece of a SOC or dev board, like Western Digital using it in storage products. A group of companies and institutions could very conceivably get things where we'd wish now that the open ISA has set the stage.
Supporting a system that centralized designs of critical semiconductors in the hands of few companies and manufacturing in the hands of TSMC is not very pragmatic. If anything it's very ideological.
You are implying that socioeconomical systems are "the real world" and somehow they just happen to exist independently from our "hopes and dreams".
It's the complete opposite. Unlike solar flares and ocean tides, socioeconomical systems are entirely the product of human decisions.