Buffalox

That's not really a viable option, you need to be able to wash your clothes, and make your dinner, and cool your food, and have light to see.
Sure it's possible to reduce it, but there is a limit where it becomes extremely inconvenient.

Not true, a wind turbine is dirt cheap for the power it can generate compared to solar panels.
Here the problem is regulation that makes it impossible if you have neighbors within 500 m.
If it wasn't for regulation a wind turbine would be a clearly better investment than solar panels.
A huge advantage with turbines is also that it tend to generate power when you need it the most for heating your house.

OK I didn't see that, that's bigger than I expected, we make about 12.5 MWh per year on our 11.2 kWh panels = 1.1 MWh per kWh capacity.
Your system is 5.1 kWh but you only make 3.8 MWh per year = 0.75 MWh per kWh capacity.
Meaning we have 50% higher yield per kWh rated capacity!

So our production remains 3.3 times higher than yours, despite we only have twice the capacity.
But our panels are pretty optimally placed towards the south.

Considering you are further south compared to us, I'm surprised your yield is so low, despite London is infamous for being cloudy.

It is not remotely close to economically viable to go off grid, and the exports of solar power to the grid pay for the connection anyway.
The reason to have a battery is that it lasts through the night, or even with a smaller system, it can handle dinner time, which is the most expensive time of day to buy electricity.
Now if you live in some remote area without a grid, a generator is a way better option than a huge battery.
Maybe if you live somewhere very sunny, like Spain and especially southern parts of USA you can probably do it with a modest battery that can handle a couple of days.
In the summer we can make enough electricity on by far the most cloudy days, but in the winter, the sun can't penetrate the clouds nearly as well.
Admittedly London is south of where I live, which is close to the most southern part of Denmark, but on the other hand London is infamous for grey weather with heavy clouds.

Seems to me his panel capacity is to small anyway.
We have 11 kWh panels, and yes in the summer we routinely produce 4 times more than we use, and we have a 7.5 kWh battery But November December and January it's not even close to enough.

In the Winter you can easily have a week with near zero production:
Our Import / export from grid last year:
November 215 / 59 kWh
December 300 15 kWh
January 268 / 34 kWh

Despite we have almost 3 times the capacity, and produce more than twice what we use per year, and we have a decent battery and believe it or not, even the shortest day we can produce enough power for a whole 24 hour day if it's a clear day! But we can also have clouds for 14 days!
But for those months we imported 783 kWh and exported 108 that could have been used with bigger battery. But the net import was still 675 kWh!! For those 3 months, and that's the minimum size battery we could have managed with, and then we even need 10% extra to compensate for charge/discharge losses.

TLDR:
Minimum 740 kWh battery in our case, and that's without heating, because we use wood pellets.

That means it would require at least the equivalent of 10 high end fully electric car batteries. But also a very hefty inverter, which AFAIK ads about 50% the price of the battery.

PS: Already in February we exported more than we imported.

“owner” is typically the maintainer,

Nope, AFAIK that is not legally applicable, that is very clear with licenses like MIT BSD etc, and for GPL in all versions it's very explicitly stated in the license.
You can also release as simply public domain, which very obviously means nobody owns as it is owned by everybody.
Generally if you give something away for free, you can't be claimed to be the owner.
I have no idea where that idea should come from, some typical anti EU alarmists maybe? And I bet there is zero legal precedent for that. And I seriously doubt any lawyer would support your claim.

If however you choose a license where the creator keeps ownership it may be different, but then it's not FOSS.

I have no idea what I'm supposed to see from you link? I don't see any particular legal knowledge, or description of any particular legal consequences, and I have no idea what the point is???
Obviously software provided for free "as is", cannot be required to be maintained. And if it is owned by the public which is the case with FOSS, there is no "owner" who can be made responsible.

If however the software is part of a commercial package, the one supplying the package has responsibility for the package supplied, you can't just supply open source software as part of a commercial product, and waive all responsibility for your product in that regard.

rather than add burden to OS makers

It's not a burden for the OS maker, except when the OS is the product, and in that case it's only fair.
With Android the phone maker adapt the OS to their phones and flavor of Android, if they can't handle maintaining it, they can use vanilla. Google is the OS maker, and I think they can handle the burden.

I think it does in some cases, like if you buy a System 76 computer with PopOS, or you buy a server with Red Hat.
However if you install a Linux OS yourself, that is available free of charge, there isn't any money to claim back, and it would be illogical if there should be demands on updates.

I think logically there needs to be money involved, so if you download PopOS you're on your own, but if you bought a computer with PopOS installed it is part of a package.

I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience this is how things typically work.

Edit PS:
If it's FOSS or FLOSS there also technically isn't any owner, so there is no legal person to make a claim against.

I think it would need to be a commercial product like Red Hat or preinstalled OS by the company that sell the computer.
With a FOSS distribution that is made freely available without charge, that people download and install themselves, people are probably themselves responsible for their choice of OS.

"Microsoft's decision to end support for Windows 10 could make 400 million computers obsolete

This is more stupid, and I absolutely agree with the article it shouldn't be legal to end support of an OS this quickly, mind you this is not update to a new OS, like is common on phones, but mostly security updates for the OS you purchased with the device.
I absolutely think 10 years should be a minimum, but for PC, I can easily see an argument for 15 years, as many systems are purpose built, and should keep working even if an OS is discontinued.

A similar argument can be made for phones, but maybe that should just be 10 or maybe even just 5 years, which very few phones have. My vote is on 10 years, because what some companies have been doing for a long time, only supporting security updates for 3 years is not acceptable IMO. If the phone is free to install custom ROM unhindered, I would be more understanding, but phones are generally locked, potentially rendering them worthless if updates are not available.

the most frequent question from users is, "Is this actually God I am talking to?"

🤣🤣🤣

Oh boy, we should drive them out of our country, and give them a country of their own.
Oh wait...

We already did, and the name of that country is USA!