3 ms·

> the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a comp

> the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device. As a group heavily populated by programmers and coders, I think it’s fairly hypocritical to say that everyone should make their IP like schematics freely available while we keep software under copyright. > Am I missing something here? - How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? - Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? At least in the case of the battery they can argue that inappropriate handling of faulty batteries is dangerous. > Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part. That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?

toss1 5y ago
>>- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? >>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code. So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies. This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape. The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends. If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription. >>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art? I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head. When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it. What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.

toss1 5y ago

>>- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? >>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code. So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies. This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape. The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends. If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription. >>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art? I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head. When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it. What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.