9 ms·

I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems: 1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such) 2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hard

I think any right to repair needs to solve 2 problems: 1: Fixing bad hardware (schematics and such) 2: Fixing old/buggy/broken software that renders said hardware useless. Without open kernels, drivers, frameworks your "right to repair" is meaningless. When you install a new camera to iPhone and it complains it's not genuine because the software says so, the right to repair becomes less useful as now Apple holds all the cards as to who gets to repair and how much that costs. You need to tackle both since often times these days they work together. For example, the Open Source community should be able to tinker with my TV's kernel and other parts to add new features rather than it being locked down and features being removed because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to pay a royalty license. What if the hardware is 100% okay but the software is broken? Is there a right to inspect the code? If not then all of these laws are redundant. All it takes is one update to "mistakenly" bork an older model or it to run a bit slower or janky animations or anything else and in the bin it goes.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee, not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail price), once the product is no longer supported by the manufacturer. I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Definitely. The problem here is that manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design specs are used in the new device, which makes them a legitimate trade secret they shouldn't be forced to reveal.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design is specs are used in the new device It’s not just ‘a claim’. I can’t think of many systems where this is not true. The iPhone still contains code from NextStep for example. I do think old (or new) hardware must be allowed to run open software, so I’d be all for mandating a ‘bootcamp’ equivalent, which did have open specs for implementers.
foobar33333 6y ago
I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones. What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.
- lnsru 6y ago
  Would you pay additional 5% for the traceability of the parts? Serial numbers must be stored somewhere. We print now them on the enclosure of the component. Actually be print batch number, individual parts cannot be identified. Putting numbers into silicon wouldn’t make things cheaper.
  - foobar33333 6y ago
    They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used their software to bless the new serial number.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".
pabs3 6y ago
Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work, failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor into compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
- simonh 6y ago
  A lot of them run on ARM chips, or other SOCs, so you'll be stuck trying to get hold of binary blob drivers.
  - pabs3 6y ago
    Blob drivers are generally a violation of the GPL license.
    - simonh 6y ago
      That's not a settled issue. The usual way this is circumvented is using an Open Source shim driver to wrap the binary blob. The shim satisfies the GPL license on the kernel. In theory the binary blob would be a violation of the GPL license on the shim, but since the shim was written by the vendor of the blob, they just don't sue themselves so the shim acts as a licensing fire break. It can be argued that the blob and the shim are the same work from the perspective of the kernel license (likely IMHO). Until it's tested in court that's a matter of opinion though.
- suyjuris 6y ago
  You can get the code, but you might not be able to do anything with it, as there is no obligation for the manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.
  - pabs3 6y ago
    This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.
Shivetya 6y ago
Totally disagree with your software claim. The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it. Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable. When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items. Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type. edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.
glitchc 6y ago
Maybe a fridge doesn't need software? I don't hear consumers clamouring for it.
- TomJansen 6y ago
  Fridges need software because only then the manufacturer can drop the support after 5 to 8 years and you need to buy a new one.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  But fridges do have software. There’s code in there monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring temperatures and making decisions. Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is run slightly out of spec resulting in failures. Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It would give people the ability to replace slightly broken firmware with better firmware extending the life of their products or even add new featured. For a fridge new features could be simple things like the ability to change its temperature on a schedule, ability to respond electricity prices etc Agree that most people aren’t interested in this. But if we’re serious about increasing the usefulness and longevity of these products then giving people the ability to make these changes can only be a plus. And to be clear I don’t think having a USB port of every fridge is a good idea, but releasing enough information that field technicians to make these changes easily would be enough.
  - glitchc 6y ago
    Oh please. I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require software. Compressor units have been working for decades without software. If the current industry is anything to go on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked! Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone. Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you more money. I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality, which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but completely the wrong way to go about things for an appliance.

KozmoNau7 6y ago

There needs to be a clause that makes the software and other designs specifications openly available (or for some small fee, not exceeding a reasonable percentage of the product's retail price), once the product is no longer supported by the manufacturer. I.e. the manufacturer has produced a newer - presumably better - device that non-technical users will want to buy, and the old devices can be handed down to more technical and tinkerer types to play around with and improve upon.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Definitely. The problem here is that manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design specs are used in the new device, which makes them a legitimate trade secret they shouldn't be forced to reveal.
- zepto 6y ago
  > manufacturers will claim that parts old of software and design is specs are used in the new device It’s not just ‘a claim’. I can’t think of many systems where this is not true. The iPhone still contains code from NextStep for example. I do think old (or new) hardware must be allowed to run open software, so I’d be all for mandating a ‘bootcamp’ equivalent, which did have open specs for implementers.

foobar33333 6y ago

I think the problem with unofficial repairs right now is where the parts come from. If you buy an iphone camera, where does that camera actually come from. I doubt there is an unoffical iphone camera factory. So those parts only have 2 sources, broken and stolen iphones. What ideally would happen is each part on the iphone has a serial number and is registered with icloud. If a phone gets stolen, you get a message when you install the camera telling you this. And if the original user deregisters their phone on the icloud web ui, the camera works again. Then Apple should be forced to publicly sell this part for a reasonable price for x years. Just these small steps would move us a long way to repairability.

lnsru 6y ago
Would you pay additional 5% for the traceability of the parts? Serial numbers must be stored somewhere. We print now them on the enclosure of the component. Actually be print batch number, individual parts cannot be identified. Putting numbers into silicon wouldn’t make things cheaper.
- foobar33333 6y ago
  They already work this way. If you swap almost any part on the iphone it either refuses to work or shows a warning about a unofficial part. My suggestion is simply to make this functionality only target stolen parts instead of just refusing to work at all if the apple store hasn't used their software to bless the new serial number.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Why should Apple decide what part I put in the phone? If the phone is out of warranty then I should be able to use batteries, screens, chargers or software that is not blessed by Apple's grace. When I was a kid we were "repairing" our cheap watches by using parts from broken ones, at most what Apple could do is print a giant warning on the boot screen that the phone is no longer blessed by Apple so people that want their thing repaired will not be "tricked".

pabs3 6y ago

Most TVs run Linux so asking them for GPLed code should work, failing that, it is a GPL violation that should be reported to Software Freedom Conservancy, who can help bring the vendor into compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

simonh 6y ago
A lot of them run on ARM chips, or other SOCs, so you'll be stuck trying to get hold of binary blob drivers.
- pabs3 6y ago
  Blob drivers are generally a violation of the GPL license.
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's not a settled issue. The usual way this is circumvented is using an Open Source shim driver to wrap the binary blob. The shim satisfies the GPL license on the kernel. In theory the binary blob would be a violation of the GPL license on the shim, but since the shim was written by the vendor of the blob, they just don't sue themselves so the shim acts as a licensing fire break. It can be argued that the blob and the shim are the same work from the perspective of the kernel license (likely IMHO). Until it's tested in court that's a matter of opinion though.
suyjuris 6y ago
You can get the code, but you might not be able to do anything with it, as there is no obligation for the manufacturer to enable you to run the code on the device itself. GPLv3 intends to cover this case, but the Linux kernel is (not without reason) licensed under GPLv2.
- pabs3 6y ago
  This is a misconception, GPLv2 also has the requirement that you receive "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". The position of the Software Freedom Conservancy is certainly that the user be given the freedom to replace the Linux kernel.

Shivetya 6y ago

Totally disagree with your software claim. The manufacturers should simply be held accountable in that they provide a means to have approved replacement hardware providers. Having software modification available could lead to cases where safety is jeopardized; any claim it cannot be is laughable; let alone who is liable if modified software causes the issue. The manufacturer would possibly be stuck proving it. Plus people vastly underestimate how much replacement components will cost along with which components are reasonably designated as replaceable. When you get to appliance level items TVs are an interesting case because its highly unlikely panels will be as cheap as new televisions and creating a case where they have to be less than the television will simply pass that cost onto anyone buying that television. The controller cards, power supply, and such, likely will be more readily available but of them the power supply is the only true part which would be more universal across items. Which brings me to, the best way to have an easier to repair world is to eliminate non standard plugs along with customized power supplies or chargers within the same product type. edit: another concern with software, the expectation that camera code be open does not protect the manufacturer intellectual property in regards to new and interesting methods to provide better picture quality.

glitchc 6y ago

Maybe a fridge doesn't need software? I don't hear consumers clamouring for it.

TomJansen 6y ago
Fridges need software because only then the manufacturer can drop the support after 5 to 8 years and you need to buy a new one.
avianlyric 6y ago
But fridges do have software. There’s code in there monitoring and regulating the compressor, monitoring temperatures and making decisions. Thankfully these problems are so simple companies rarely fuckup the software. But it does happen, and then hardware is run slightly out of spec resulting in failures. Have the right to replace the software would be amazing. It would give people the ability to replace slightly broken firmware with better firmware extending the life of their products or even add new featured. For a fridge new features could be simple things like the ability to change its temperature on a schedule, ability to respond electricity prices etc Agree that most people aren’t interested in this. But if we’re serious about increasing the usefulness and longevity of these products then giving people the ability to make these changes can only be a plus. And to be clear I don’t think having a USB port of every fridge is a good idea, but releasing enough information that field technicians to make these changes easily would be enough.
- glitchc 6y ago
  Oh please. I'm sorry, air compressor regulation does not require software. Compressor units have been working for decades without software. If the current industry is anything to go on, the reliance on software for compressor regulation has reduced, not increased, reliability. Older fridges would last 20-30 years. Last year I threw out a fridge that was a free hand-me-down. The gasket was so old that the door would not seal anymore, but the compressor still worked! Most of the other things you speak of, such as schedule based temperature changes, are possible in hardware alone. Responding to electricity prices is a no-go anyways, a fridge maintains a constant internal temperature. Turning it off to save money will spoil food faster, costing you more money. I think you come from a "software is everything" mentality, which is fine for something as complex as a smartphone, but completely the wrong way to go about things for an appliance.