4 ms·

It should be mandatory by law to open-source APIs at discontinuation.

Eduardo3rd 7y ago
Strongly disagree. Your proposal would squash innovation and make sure that no small company ever creates an API based system again.
- pirocks 7y ago
  Why? Why would no small company open source APIs?
  - realbarack 7y ago
    I'm imagining some world where patent troll-equivalents crawl the web for abandoned experiments that could serve as fodder for lawsuits. I agree with the sentiment that companies shouldn't brick products with code changes but worry about the downstream effects.
    - Eduardo3rd 7y ago
      This is a great example. I'm not saying that the behavior Sonos engaged in here is good - I'm just saying that jumping to "it should be illegal" so quickly without considering all of the secondary impacts is a mistake.
    - pirocks 7y ago
      Thing is there's is already plenty of open source code out there written by people of very varied means. As far as I know patent troll like behavior is not a major problem for open source, so I don't see why it would magically become the case.
  - Eduardo3rd 7y ago
    Practically speaking it costs time and therefore money to do this. Small companies can't be expected to have both the technical and legal resources on hand to ensure compliance in the event of an EOL event for an API.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  You disagree that discontinued products should not be required to open source their API? Not active and existing APIs, discontinued ones.
  - Eduardo3rd 7y ago
    Yes. The cost to do the work and the cost to ensure compliance with the law would both be real dollar amounts for most small companies. Enough that if you wanted to try out an experimental new service you'd have to take into account that cost in your budgeting. Telling a company (or individual) that they need to sit down and pay to kill their products means they will think harder before they launch them. That's a barrier, and it will slow down innovation and make sure that only the companies with the resources to support compliance and open sourcing will be the ones to launch new services.
cafxx 7y ago
Strongly agree, and I would add that if the object in question has any networking capability even the firmware should be open sourced - otherwise the first serious security vulnerability immediately makes said object unfit for purpose and - therefore - obsolete. The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete. Unless, that is, such innovation is a red herring and the new product is a mere repackaging of the same, old technology, done exclusively for the sake of artificially sustaining cash flow.
- ternaryoperator 7y ago
  "The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete." Many products contain proprietary elements that are licensed by third-parties who have no reason to agree to their software being open-sourced. The company I work at constantly gets calls to open-source product X that they discontinued, but they can't because of the reliance on code that doesn't belong to them. And predictably enough, they're not willing to go back and renegotiate a new license for a product that they're discontinuing.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Many companies don't want to open source their code because then they have to accept liability for the provenance of the code. It's not that they are aware of improprieties in the provenance, it's just that they don't have proof there are none. And since open sourcing it does not result in revenue, they cannot justify the cost of vetting the provenance. A way to fix this would be to shorten patent and copyright terms.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    This has always been a total BS excuse and we should not let companies handwave it away this way. Ok, so 5% of your firmware is licensed from some other company (who somehow never is named in these discussions) and is therefore somehow impossible to open source. Fine. So open source the remaining 95%!

Strongly disagree. Your proposal would squash innovation and make sure that no small company ever creates an API based system again.

pirocks 7y ago
Why? Why would no small company open source APIs?
- realbarack 7y ago
  I'm imagining some world where patent troll-equivalents crawl the web for abandoned experiments that could serve as fodder for lawsuits. I agree with the sentiment that companies shouldn't brick products with code changes but worry about the downstream effects.
  - Eduardo3rd 7y ago
    This is a great example. I'm not saying that the behavior Sonos engaged in here is good - I'm just saying that jumping to "it should be illegal" so quickly without considering all of the secondary impacts is a mistake.
  - pirocks 7y ago
    Thing is there's is already plenty of open source code out there written by people of very varied means. As far as I know patent troll like behavior is not a major problem for open source, so I don't see why it would magically become the case.
- Eduardo3rd 7y ago
  Practically speaking it costs time and therefore money to do this. Small companies can't be expected to have both the technical and legal resources on hand to ensure compliance in the event of an EOL event for an API.
t-writescode 7y ago
You disagree that discontinued products should not be required to open source their API? Not active and existing APIs, discontinued ones.
- Eduardo3rd 7y ago
  Yes. The cost to do the work and the cost to ensure compliance with the law would both be real dollar amounts for most small companies. Enough that if you wanted to try out an experimental new service you'd have to take into account that cost in your budgeting. Telling a company (or individual) that they need to sit down and pay to kill their products means they will think harder before they launch them. That's a barrier, and it will slow down innovation and make sure that only the companies with the resources to support compliance and open sourcing will be the ones to launch new services.

cafxx 7y ago

Strongly agree, and I would add that if the object in question has any networking capability even the firmware should be open sourced - otherwise the first serious security vulnerability immediately makes said object unfit for purpose and - therefore - obsolete. The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete. Unless, that is, such innovation is a red herring and the new product is a mere repackaging of the same, old technology, done exclusively for the sake of artificially sustaining cash flow.

ternaryoperator 7y ago
"The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for something the company considers obsolete." Many products contain proprietary elements that are licensed by third-parties who have no reason to agree to their software being open-sourced. The company I work at constantly gets calls to open-source product X that they discontinued, but they can't because of the reliance on code that doesn't belong to them. And predictably enough, they're not willing to go back and renegotiate a new license for a product that they're discontinuing.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Many companies don't want to open source their code because then they have to accept liability for the provenance of the code. It's not that they are aware of improprieties in the provenance, it's just that they don't have proof there are none. And since open sourcing it does not result in revenue, they cannot justify the cost of vetting the provenance. A way to fix this would be to shorten patent and copyright terms.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  This has always been a total BS excuse and we should not let companies handwave it away this way. Ok, so 5% of your firmware is licensed from some other company (who somehow never is named in these discussions) and is therefore somehow impossible to open source. Fine. So open source the remaining 95%!