4 ms·

The right to repair has nothing to do with open source and it is probably best to avoid conflating it with open source. It is going to be difficult enough to p

by II2II 5y ago

The right to repair has nothing to do with open source and it is probably best to avoid conflating it with open source. It is going to be difficult enough to pass legislation to enable the access to components and schematics, as well as to prevent the implementation of technical barriers intended to make independent repair (and modifications) illegal. The reason why we reached this abysmal state of affairs has more to do with consumer apathy, a set of property rights for producers that were naively reasonable, and a twisting of laws that were intended for other purposes. Put in other terms, the Apple II was not open source. The schematics were freely available, at least some of the ROM's source code was available, there were no barriers to repair (if I recall correctly, there were no custom chips/components), and people were free to modify the hardware. Yet you could not make copies, straight-up or modified, without being sued by Apple. A cleanroom approach would have to be taken to make something compatible. The world seemed to be okay with that. Things like schematics and code served supported repairability, which was an expectation of consumers back then, so the vendor voluntarily provided it. That being said, a true open source approach to hardware would have still been frowned upon back then.

bengale 5y ago
The conflation of right to repair with other things might make the whole enterprise impossible. It's currently very difficult to claim support for something when the goalposts keep moving. I'm very much in support of companies being required to provide schematics, where reasonable. Also I see no reason why they should be able to stop manufacturers selling parts to repair shops. I don't think that forcing design choices, such as modular components, easily replaceable batteries, requiring certain ports and things like that are a good idea. These ideas should stand on their own, if there is a market for it then let people make that choice for themselves, including the downsides that come with it. I think if right to repair can't get a handle on what's being advocated for then things like phones and laptops will be left out of any major legislation.
- larossmann 5y ago
  Here's an interview I did with National Review where I discussed this topic. I'll include the exercpt that applies to your concern below. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-expert-takes-on-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-exp... "So one example of what Right to Repair is not: The European Union, I believe, was looking to mandate that Apple use USB-C instead of Lightning, because USB-C is a standard and Lightning is not a standard. I don’t want people to think that has anything to do with Right to Repair because it doesn’t; that’s completely separate. I’m not looking to tell Apple, “You need to use this type of charge port. I want you to use micro USB. I want you to use USB-C. I want you to use this.” No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it for customers rather than tell them, “Your phone is now a brick.” So I think that is a good example of what Right to Repair is not: We’re not looking to say, “You need to use this port. You need to do this.” Just don’t intentionally lock people out of the ability to fix it once you’ve chosen how to design it." ------- Right to repair has a fine handle on what is being advocated for, and it is spelled out in the legislation. I don't think people read it though. In the EU, it is different than in the US. I do not support legislation that forces design choices on modularity or using specific ports. That's EU Right to Repair, but I have no business on that since I don't live there. US right to repair is about making things available. Use microUSB, USB-C, mini-usb, parallel port.. so long as it's made available for purchase to repair shops/users.
  - bengale 5y ago
    I’m in the EU so that probably skews my view on it. Tbh every time I hear your take on right to repair I find it lines up with where I stand. The more that you can be pushed as the voice of right to repair the better. I think the vast majority could agree on this position.
  - dpkonofa 5y ago
    With respect, I think you're being disingenuous here and I think you know it. No one is telling customers "your phone is now a brick" when their charge port breaks and "right to repair", as a whole" does not have a fine handle on what's being advocated for. If it did, there wouldn't be so many different variations of understanding for "right to repair" actually is. The number of variations for it in the various bills being floating around is innumerable and there are very few people, and I'm excluding you in this, who aren't trying to push their desires for it for anything but selfish reasons. I get that you're kinda the de-facto figurehead of the movement but let's not pretend that your reasons for supporting this are altruistic and that you're not pushing for this because you run a business that needs this to go through. Regardless of what companies we're talking about, your business would eventually go under if the current situation doesn't change so forgive me if I take everything you say with a grain of salt, especially considering that you've made misleading claims in your videos and ignore when people call you out on it. That, to me, is not the way to grow support for people's rights over the products they own. The only way to do that is to be blunt and honest about what the situation is on both sides and what the motivations for the two sides are. They are not irreconcilable.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Yet you could not make copies, straight-up or modified, without being sued by Apple. Well, you could; you just couldn't sell them. You could make them for private use, if you wanted.
SomeGoon 5y ago
I will assume that you meant Free Software Movement instead of the Open Source one, as people easily confuse these two. I agree how conflicting FSM with RTR would be detrimental to the actual possibility of implementation. However, Free Software Movement actually goes hand in hand with Right to Repair - both are about the basic right to own and control your own device. Luis Rossmann even (maybe non-intentionally) touched on it in a recent video and said that's it's unacceptable for manufacturers to block bootloaders on their devices, restricting you from the type of OS you can run. That's strictly a Free Software Movement issue and not necessarily a Right to Repair issue. Right to Repair is basically hardware equivalent to FSM. You can even think about it as such - one is fighting for your right to repair your own device and the other for your right to repair software on that device. Obviously, that's a major simplification and there are many other implications in both movements, but they're both set on the same set of principles. That's why a big part of the Free Software community is using old thinkpads - they have the freedom to run whatever software they want (as they don't have Intel Management Engine) AND the right to repair and modify the actual hardware (those devices are a joy to open and repair). I also believe that companies should provide hardware schematics with their devices and customers should be able to repair them and modify them using these. As for the "copy" part, I don't quite get what you mean. What exactly did you mean by copy? Is a device with one part changed/repaired is a copy? Is a device build completely out of parts got from other, damaged devices is a copy? Because if you meant that you can't just use the schematics to build and sell a device based on them as your own, original device then that's obvious. Copying a device and selling it as your own creation is just fraud and absolutely not the kind of thing that FSM is fighting for. It's a common strawman argument used by the FSM opposers though.

by II2II 5y ago

bengale 5y ago

The conflation of right to repair with other things might make the whole enterprise impossible. It's currently very difficult to claim support for something when the goalposts keep moving. I'm very much in support of companies being required to provide schematics, where reasonable. Also I see no reason why they should be able to stop manufacturers selling parts to repair shops. I don't think that forcing design choices, such as modular components, easily replaceable batteries, requiring certain ports and things like that are a good idea. These ideas should stand on their own, if there is a market for it then let people make that choice for themselves, including the downsides that come with it. I think if right to repair can't get a handle on what's being advocated for then things like phones and laptops will be left out of any major legislation.

larossmann 5y ago
Here's an interview I did with National Review where I discussed this topic. I'll include the exercpt that applies to your concern below. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-expert-takes-on-big-tech/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/a-computer-repair-exp... "So one example of what Right to Repair is not: The European Union, I believe, was looking to mandate that Apple use USB-C instead of Lightning, because USB-C is a standard and Lightning is not a standard. I don’t want people to think that has anything to do with Right to Repair because it doesn’t; that’s completely separate. I’m not looking to tell Apple, “You need to use this type of charge port. I want you to use micro USB. I want you to use USB-C. I want you to use this.” No, what we’re saying is, regardless of what you use to charge your phone — you could use a banana to charge it — just give us access to be able to purchase that charge port so that if the charge port in the phone breaks, we can fix it for customers rather than tell them, “Your phone is now a brick.” So I think that is a good example of what Right to Repair is not: We’re not looking to say, “You need to use this port. You need to do this.” Just don’t intentionally lock people out of the ability to fix it once you’ve chosen how to design it." ------- Right to repair has a fine handle on what is being advocated for, and it is spelled out in the legislation. I don't think people read it though. In the EU, it is different than in the US. I do not support legislation that forces design choices on modularity or using specific ports. That's EU Right to Repair, but I have no business on that since I don't live there. US right to repair is about making things available. Use microUSB, USB-C, mini-usb, parallel port.. so long as it's made available for purchase to repair shops/users.
- bengale 5y ago
  I’m in the EU so that probably skews my view on it. Tbh every time I hear your take on right to repair I find it lines up with where I stand. The more that you can be pushed as the voice of right to repair the better. I think the vast majority could agree on this position.
- dpkonofa 5y ago
  With respect, I think you're being disingenuous here and I think you know it. No one is telling customers "your phone is now a brick" when their charge port breaks and "right to repair", as a whole" does not have a fine handle on what's being advocated for. If it did, there wouldn't be so many different variations of understanding for "right to repair" actually is. The number of variations for it in the various bills being floating around is innumerable and there are very few people, and I'm excluding you in this, who aren't trying to push their desires for it for anything but selfish reasons. I get that you're kinda the de-facto figurehead of the movement but let's not pretend that your reasons for supporting this are altruistic and that you're not pushing for this because you run a business that needs this to go through. Regardless of what companies we're talking about, your business would eventually go under if the current situation doesn't change so forgive me if I take everything you say with a grain of salt, especially considering that you've made misleading claims in your videos and ignore when people call you out on it. That, to me, is not the way to grow support for people's rights over the products they own. The only way to do that is to be blunt and honest about what the situation is on both sides and what the motivations for the two sides are. They are not irreconcilable.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> Yet you could not make copies, straight-up or modified, without being sued by Apple. Well, you could; you just couldn't sell them. You could make them for private use, if you wanted.

SomeGoon 5y ago

I will assume that you meant Free Software Movement instead of the Open Source one, as people easily confuse these two. I agree how conflicting FSM with RTR would be detrimental to the actual possibility of implementation. However, Free Software Movement actually goes hand in hand with Right to Repair - both are about the basic right to own and control your own device. Luis Rossmann even (maybe non-intentionally) touched on it in a recent video and said that's it's unacceptable for manufacturers to block bootloaders on their devices, restricting you from the type of OS you can run. That's strictly a Free Software Movement issue and not necessarily a Right to Repair issue. Right to Repair is basically hardware equivalent to FSM. You can even think about it as such - one is fighting for your right to repair your own device and the other for your right to repair software on that device. Obviously, that's a major simplification and there are many other implications in both movements, but they're both set on the same set of principles. That's why a big part of the Free Software community is using old thinkpads - they have the freedom to run whatever software they want (as they don't have Intel Management Engine) AND the right to repair and modify the actual hardware (those devices are a joy to open and repair). I also believe that companies should provide hardware schematics with their devices and customers should be able to repair them and modify them using these. As for the "copy" part, I don't quite get what you mean. What exactly did you mean by copy? Is a device with one part changed/repaired is a copy? Is a device build completely out of parts got from other, damaged devices is a copy? Because if you meant that you can't just use the schematics to build and sell a device based on them as your own, original device then that's obvious. Copying a device and selling it as your own creation is just fraud and absolutely not the kind of thing that FSM is fighting for. It's a common strawman argument used by the FSM opposers though.