>Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your

>Now "right to repair" includes not only designing devices to be easier to repair but also includes legacy software support? Where do we draw this line? If your M1 dies, you can't fab one yourself or run older software on it indefinitely. You're argument is with the author, and his interpretation, not with "right to repair". What "right to repair" is or isn't , is not decided by the author of this article. There are various organizations that are loosely related with a few shared ideals. >We must very carefully define our terms here, because requiring someone else to provide on one's behalf presumes a right to the product of their labor. Not really. Anyone can propose anything in an article, and they must be free to do so. Its upto us as a collective to think over ideas and proposals and then push for policy proposals that align. Ultimately the terms will be defined in legislation, not on bbc.com