No, because software carries copyright, and any law that touches that would be struck down by federal preemption and international treaties. While most of that

No, because software carries copyright, and any law that touches that would be struck down by federal preemption and international treaties. While most of that preemption is specifically America's idea, the US is also chock full of people holding all sorts of base assumptions that copyright and patents are fundamentally good. This is the country full of people who get angry when China "steals our IP", rather than getting angry that companies were hoarding knowledge from everyone else for profit, or getting angry that China isn't sharing their pirate's booty. Yes, technically, only the agenda of the rich gets passed in the US; but that's mostly because the US has done such a great job of aligning the interests of an enfranchised middle class and rich people that people aren't willing to question copyright at a low enough level to make "software R2R" legislatively viable. We're the country of people who pirate movies and then blame pirates for tanking the sales of those movies. Anyway, if you want to know what a minimal software R2R bill would look like, it would probably be a copyright exception that allowed distributing unauthorized modifications to software under specific circumstances, probably with the added stipulation that the modifications need to be distributed in a form that cannot be used without a licensed copy of the original software. That sounds simple enough but you immediately bring on all sorts of related questions if you add such a large gaping hole to the copyright system. Do people who make these fixes get copyright protection, too? In the US, licensed derivative works get a separate copyright that the original author is at risk of infringing upon. Unlicensed derivatives are uncopyrightable; this is why it's legal to pirate fanart[0], because the alternative would be fanworks boxing out the original artist of their own work. If someone fixes software under software R2R, should the original software vendor be allowed to incorporate that fix back into their own work? Should other vendors be able to use that fix and modify it further? Those questions are very critical to answer, and I don't have good answers for them. FWIW software R2R would also thoroughly break the GPL copyleft, because it relies upon everything I just said about derivative works. The thing is, GPL is also the most friendly software to right-to-repair, specifically because it requires source code disclosure. A badly written software repair exception would not only destroy this, but also give us a repair ecosystem of people with binary-only software patches suing each other for stealing their own work and just recursing back into the same copyright maximalism problem we already have. [0] Strictly speaking, if you pirate, say, One Piece[1] fanart and sold it on a t-shirt, Shueisha can still sue you. The artist who made the fanart can't - not even if it was Shueisha themselves pirating pirate fanart on t-shirts and selling it. [1] STOP! 海賊版