When comparing Sigfox to LoRa, they are not even that bad in terms of openness:
The Sigfox protocol specifications are public: https://build.sigfox.com/sigfox-device-radio-specifications
This is in contrast to LoRa, which remains a closed protocol (I am not talking about LoRaWAN, that part of the spec is open, but LoRa, i.e. the physical layer stuff).
So there really is a tradeoff here:
If you want an open wireless protocol compatible with many standard RF transceivers, but a proprietary backend and device library, go for Sigfox.
If you want a closed, proprietary wireless protocol that only works with Semtech chips, but an open backend, go for LoRa/LoRaWAN.
Since several projects have done that one might ask them if they have considered this. For all we know, they may have discussed this with Semtech, in which case the status may be knowable.
Comments
When comparing Sigfox to LoRa, they are not even that bad in terms of openness: The Sigfox protocol specifications are public: https://build.sigfox.com/sigfox-device-radio-specifications This is in contrast to LoRa, which remains a closed protocol (I am not talking about LoRaWAN, that part of the spec is open, but LoRa, i.e. the physical layer stuff). So there really is a tradeoff here: If you want an open wireless protocol compatible with many standard RF transceivers, but a proprietary backend and device library, go for Sigfox. If you want a closed, proprietary wireless protocol that only works with Semtech chips, but an open backend, go for LoRa/LoRaWAN.
Image that you can implement LoRa using GNUradio but you will exposing yourself to litigation. That's very problematic IMHO
Since several projects have done that one might ask them if they have considered this. For all we know, they may have discussed this with Semtech, in which case the status may be knowable.