4 ms·

You've picked some pretty dangerous subjects in healthcare and privacy. It's no coincidence that these areas are focal points for regulatory legislation - this

You've picked some pretty dangerous subjects in healthcare and privacy. It's no coincidence that these areas are focal points for regulatory legislation - this is serious stuff, but that's why we have laws and other mechanisms in place to deal with these things. The regulatory environment is precisely what addresses the fact that software does not exist in isolation. It's ludicrous though to suggest that all closed source software become illegal. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! You'll be hard pressed to find any regulatory justification for such a blanket measure. This is overreaching, entitled ideological authoritarianism. The danger is that you don't see it because it all sounds so ethical on the surface, especially when framed through the dramatic lens of your grandmother's pacemaker. Maybe I do think there needs to be more transparency in healthcare products, and I think that what Vizio did is despicable - but we can't just knee-jerk all the way to the other extreme of outright banning all closed source. What you're essentially advocating for is the application of absolute power on everyone in order to prevent some from abusing their power. Do you not see the dangerous escalation of the stakes once you take this approach? I'm almost more afraid of you than I am of Vizio. I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me?

kuschku 10y ago
> I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me? No, but some realistic proposals include forcing developers to release their source as soon as they stop providing fixes for bugs to all people who bought a license. Another proposal that’s currently demoed is the government paying a wage to all open source devs: https://prototypefund.de/2017/02/22/german-prototype-fund-grants-up-to-30-000-for-open-source-projects/ https://prototypefund.de/2017/02/22/german-prototype-fund-gr... > outright banning all closed source. I’m not sure where you see the problem? With patents we already require you to publish the entire process to get protection – as algorithms are not protected by copyright, and most not by patents, a possible solution for software protection that’s discussed is providing copyright protection for software under the restriction that the source is published after a few years (and until then held by a trustee)
- theprotocol 10y ago
  The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions will certainly exist, but that's beside the point and I don't see the value in descending into the minutiae of the exceptions and consequently not being able to see the forest for the trees. Your view of your ideological opponents is very ungenerous. You accord it absolutely no merit, as it seems you deem it completely wrong and advocate for its banning outright. Instead I would urge you to understand why some people and organizations have un-nefarious reasons for making closed-source software. To put the burden of justification on them so that they can be allowed to do their own thing is, well, pretty unfair. You seem to operate with the assumption that your ideological opponents are objectively guilty. And I write this as an advocate for open source (a 100% personal and debatable belief, not an absolute moral claim): you are not being fair when you act like anyone making closed-source software has some obligation to prove to society that they're not being nefarious. You're seriously willing to punish everyone either legislatively or through a stigma because Vizio did something unethical? The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our society, and your arguments just casually trample all over it, as if it's settled and you're right by default.

kuschku 10y ago

> I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me? No, but some realistic proposals include forcing developers to release their source as soon as they stop providing fixes for bugs to all people who bought a license. Another proposal that’s currently demoed is the government paying a wage to all open source devs: https://prototypefund.de/2017/02/22/german-prototype-fund-grants-up-to-30-000-for-open-source-projects/ https://prototypefund.de/2017/02/22/german-prototype-fund-gr... > outright banning all closed source. I’m not sure where you see the problem? With patents we already require you to publish the entire process to get protection – as algorithms are not protected by copyright, and most not by patents, a possible solution for software protection that’s discussed is providing copyright protection for software under the restriction that the source is published after a few years (and until then held by a trustee)

theprotocol 10y ago
The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions will certainly exist, but that's beside the point and I don't see the value in descending into the minutiae of the exceptions and consequently not being able to see the forest for the trees. Your view of your ideological opponents is very ungenerous. You accord it absolutely no merit, as it seems you deem it completely wrong and advocate for its banning outright. Instead I would urge you to understand why some people and organizations have un-nefarious reasons for making closed-source software. To put the burden of justification on them so that they can be allowed to do their own thing is, well, pretty unfair. You seem to operate with the assumption that your ideological opponents are objectively guilty. And I write this as an advocate for open source (a 100% personal and debatable belief, not an absolute moral claim): you are not being fair when you act like anyone making closed-source software has some obligation to prove to society that they're not being nefarious. You're seriously willing to punish everyone either legislatively or through a stigma because Vizio did something unethical? The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our society, and your arguments just casually trample all over it, as if it's settled and you're right by default.