3 ms·

I like this, but I think a reasonable alternative would be that for smart phones older than a certain age the manufacturer publish enough information for the cr

I like this, but I think a reasonable alternative would be that for smart phones older than a certain age the manufacturer publish enough information for the creation of free drivers and software and unlocks for installing that software. One thing that makes me really sad is that I would probably be perfectly fine still using iPhone 5 era hardware if I had a free OS I could put on there with ongoing support. That's entirely reasonable in the desktop/laptop space so it strikes me as kinda sad that it seems non-existent in phones, when it's all just computers anyway.

yourapostasy 5y ago
I am a proponent of this idea, but I could never figure out how to address proprietary blobs and third-party entanglements. Even Apple with their massive vertical integration likely cannot fully open source an iPhone 5, as there are proprietary bits like certain chip driver's software API they've agreed to not divulge that are still in effect due to the nature of many legal agreements to grasp for indefinite terms in these matters.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  If you're gonna have a law about open sourcing things, you just add a clause that says IP agreements after the lock-up term ends are null and void and unenforceable at law. You can have privacy (of your IP) or property rights, but state institutions will only help you enforce one, not both. Some people will argue that this will stifle innovation, because the manufacturers of the latest and greatest won't be incentivized to license their stuff. OK. Essentially I'm describing a bet on openness winning out over proprietary over time.
908B64B197 5y ago
The problem are the SoC that often have weird peripheral and drivers that require patched kernels (and often it's to interface with proprietary hardware that's under IP constrains).
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  Two options: the claimed IP on the interface is removed or said to never have existed in the first place, and/or prevent bootloader locking. First one is a very good idea, as older IP law actually holds that interfaces aren't copyrightable. US IP law is schizophrenic on this last point considering the Oracle ruling. E.g. you're free to implement an interface for compatibility.
- neop1x 5y ago
  >> SoC that often have weird peripheral and drivers that require patched kernels This is a sad industry-wide mess which should have been fixed long time ago IMO. It is unfortunately common for an Android device to come with a custom patched 2.x kernel with no plans for 3.x support. Then when a next Android is released it has a hard requirement of 3.x kernel. So no Android update for that SoC/device and no way to port this mess into the newer kernel. If SoC/peripheral manufacturers only supply "software" as a custom hacked 2.x kernel branch they are basically supplying unfinished PoC-quality un-updatable garbage and such software should have never been released with a production device. This is non-existent on desktop and laptop space where you often have mainline support for all the essential components.

yourapostasy 5y ago

I am a proponent of this idea, but I could never figure out how to address proprietary blobs and third-party entanglements. Even Apple with their massive vertical integration likely cannot fully open source an iPhone 5, as there are proprietary bits like certain chip driver's software API they've agreed to not divulge that are still in effect due to the nature of many legal agreements to grasp for indefinite terms in these matters.

anigbrowl 5y ago
If you're gonna have a law about open sourcing things, you just add a clause that says IP agreements after the lock-up term ends are null and void and unenforceable at law. You can have privacy (of your IP) or property rights, but state institutions will only help you enforce one, not both. Some people will argue that this will stifle innovation, because the manufacturers of the latest and greatest won't be incentivized to license their stuff. OK. Essentially I'm describing a bet on openness winning out over proprietary over time.

908B64B197 5y ago

The problem are the SoC that often have weird peripheral and drivers that require patched kernels (and often it's to interface with proprietary hardware that's under IP constrains).

R0b0t1 5y ago
Two options: the claimed IP on the interface is removed or said to never have existed in the first place, and/or prevent bootloader locking. First one is a very good idea, as older IP law actually holds that interfaces aren't copyrightable. US IP law is schizophrenic on this last point considering the Oracle ruling. E.g. you're free to implement an interface for compatibility.
neop1x 5y ago
>> SoC that often have weird peripheral and drivers that require patched kernels This is a sad industry-wide mess which should have been fixed long time ago IMO. It is unfortunately common for an Android device to come with a custom patched 2.x kernel with no plans for 3.x support. Then when a next Android is released it has a hard requirement of 3.x kernel. So no Android update for that SoC/device and no way to port this mess into the newer kernel. If SoC/peripheral manufacturers only supply "software" as a custom hacked 2.x kernel branch they are basically supplying unfinished PoC-quality un-updatable garbage and such software should have never been released with a production device. This is non-existent on desktop and laptop space where you often have mainline support for all the essential components.