4 ms·

I'm not so sure about that; I've certainly met plenty of people who did not understand it. HN is not representative of the wider tech community. And "free as i

I'm not so sure about that; I've certainly met plenty of people who did not understand it. HN is not representative of the wider tech community. And "free as in speech, not beer" actually does little to clarify it IMHO; it only works well if you're already familiar with the concept, but if you're not it only adds to the confusion (free speech is about the freedom to say what you want, so free software is about being able to write whatever software you want?) Now, "free software as in right to repair" would actually clarify it, but trying to get an understandable message out seems to be "unethical" so meh :-/

atonse 4y ago
There are probably even fewer people that know what right to repair is. Free software just isn’t enough anymore because the licenses limit your freedom too. (and even my choice of the word “limit” here will be controversial between the Apache/MIT and the *GPL crowds). Don’t have an easy answer :-)
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Right to repair has been all over the news, including mainstream news, and least in tech circles it's fairly well known. And while there are undoubtable many people who don't know what it means, the basic idea is quite obvious from just those three words: "if I bought something, I should have the ability to repair it". The problem is that merely right to repair doesn't cover all of Free Software so it will never catch on with the hard-core FSF crowd who seem to think that the only possible step is one giant leap to a Free Software utopia and than any smaller step in that direction is "unethical".
  - cmurf 4y ago
    Do many/most people really think they should have the ability to repair it? I'm not sure because they keep buying products where it's expressly not possible to repair it yourself or by a competent 3rd party. So I'm not really sure it has any more meaning than free software means no cost rather than "no one and everyone owns the software".
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      this question is exactly why I suggested we revisit that terminology in this thread!
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Before micro-USB every cell phone came with its own charging connector plug and everyone and their mother was complaining about it, but people still bought them because there wasn't all that much of a choice, or the sacrifices you had to make in other areas were just too large. Price, functionality, availability, etc. all factor in. And the tricky thing with repairs is that it's a very "non-obvious" feature.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > Do many/most people really think they should have the ability to repair it? “Ability” is the wrong word here, why did you use that word? It’s ambiguous and misleading, that’s why it’s called the right to repair. Yes most people do assume they have the right to modify and fix something they “own”, whether it’s a car or a computer or anything else. Don’t you think it’s surprising and non-obvious that you might not be allowed to repair something you paid for and own, even when you know how to repair it? Whether they ever intend to repair something, and whether they have the knowledge to repair something, are both irrelevant to whether they have the legal right to repair something. > they keep buying products where it’s expressly not possible to repair it yourself or by a competent 3rd party. Most people have no intention of repairing their technical purchases themselves, and that’s perfectly fine. Most people also don’t care about right to repair laws even if it affects them. The point of right to repair laws is to establish the common sense standard that consumers are allowed to legally modify their purchases, and companies will no longer be allowed to go out of their way to prevent repairs or make them difficult (also and perhaps especially wrt 3rd parties), and also that companies and lawmakers will no longer be able to make customizing and repairing purchased products illegal as has been done in the past.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Right to repair has been all over the news, including mainstream news, and least in tech circles Has been in the kind of news Joe Average doesn't give a fuck about and even if they watch, they forget in 10 minutes. Techies spot mentions of it in the news because they already care for it and know the term. That's not the same as something being in the news that reach regular people (that would be more like some high profile Hollywood divorse, some war, or gas prices).
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Such hostile contempt... Lots of things to concern yourself about and not everyone is interested in everything which is fine, but it's gotten quite a bit of coverage and certainly a lot more people know about it, never mind laws are being discussed and actually passed. More importantly, explaining the concept is just a lot easier because it's significantly less abstract.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >Such hostile contempt... No such thing. I'm fine with Joe Average, and I don't think everybody should know about everything, much less about the "right to repair" (much more important stuff for people to learn about, including politics and/or gas prices and other things that affect someone more). I'm merely stating a fact: the "right to repair" is not something that has been covered in any degree for the regular persons to know or care about. Most of those that do are already familiar with the tech scene, if not as technies, then as gadget lovers and tinkerers.
coldtea 4y ago
>I'm not so sure about that; I've certainly met plenty of people who did not understand it. HN is not representative of the wider tech community. Well, people understand it just fine. It's just that the definitive allure of FOSS is not what the purists think it is. purist: FOSS is about freedom (to work on the source, release changs as FOSS, etc) real world: what I care about is 70% the code being available to use for free and 30% the ability for others (and me in some cases) to edit it and release my changes. Yeah, I do understand it's not the same as mere "freeware". But for most intents and purposes that the part I care most about, but I also like the FOSS aspect because it means I can get more community stuff for it, and I don't depend on a single vendor releasing it.
tendstofortytwo 4y ago
> HN is not representative of the wider tech community. But we are on HN right now...

atonse 4y ago

There are probably even fewer people that know what right to repair is. Free software just isn’t enough anymore because the licenses limit your freedom too. (and even my choice of the word “limit” here will be controversial between the Apache/MIT and the *GPL crowds). Don’t have an easy answer :-)

Beltalowda 4y ago
Right to repair has been all over the news, including mainstream news, and least in tech circles it's fairly well known. And while there are undoubtable many people who don't know what it means, the basic idea is quite obvious from just those three words: "if I bought something, I should have the ability to repair it". The problem is that merely right to repair doesn't cover all of Free Software so it will never catch on with the hard-core FSF crowd who seem to think that the only possible step is one giant leap to a Free Software utopia and than any smaller step in that direction is "unethical".
- cmurf 4y ago
  Do many/most people really think they should have the ability to repair it? I'm not sure because they keep buying products where it's expressly not possible to repair it yourself or by a competent 3rd party. So I'm not really sure it has any more meaning than free software means no cost rather than "no one and everyone owns the software".
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    this question is exactly why I suggested we revisit that terminology in this thread!
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Before micro-USB every cell phone came with its own charging connector plug and everyone and their mother was complaining about it, but people still bought them because there wasn't all that much of a choice, or the sacrifices you had to make in other areas were just too large. Price, functionality, availability, etc. all factor in. And the tricky thing with repairs is that it's a very "non-obvious" feature.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > Do many/most people really think they should have the ability to repair it? “Ability” is the wrong word here, why did you use that word? It’s ambiguous and misleading, that’s why it’s called the right to repair. Yes most people do assume they have the right to modify and fix something they “own”, whether it’s a car or a computer or anything else. Don’t you think it’s surprising and non-obvious that you might not be allowed to repair something you paid for and own, even when you know how to repair it? Whether they ever intend to repair something, and whether they have the knowledge to repair something, are both irrelevant to whether they have the legal right to repair something. > they keep buying products where it’s expressly not possible to repair it yourself or by a competent 3rd party. Most people have no intention of repairing their technical purchases themselves, and that’s perfectly fine. Most people also don’t care about right to repair laws even if it affects them. The point of right to repair laws is to establish the common sense standard that consumers are allowed to legally modify their purchases, and companies will no longer be allowed to go out of their way to prevent repairs or make them difficult (also and perhaps especially wrt 3rd parties), and also that companies and lawmakers will no longer be able to make customizing and repairing purchased products illegal as has been done in the past.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Right to repair has been all over the news, including mainstream news, and least in tech circles Has been in the kind of news Joe Average doesn't give a fuck about and even if they watch, they forget in 10 minutes. Techies spot mentions of it in the news because they already care for it and know the term. That's not the same as something being in the news that reach regular people (that would be more like some high profile Hollywood divorse, some war, or gas prices).
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Such hostile contempt... Lots of things to concern yourself about and not everyone is interested in everything which is fine, but it's gotten quite a bit of coverage and certainly a lot more people know about it, never mind laws are being discussed and actually passed. More importantly, explaining the concept is just a lot easier because it's significantly less abstract.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >Such hostile contempt... No such thing. I'm fine with Joe Average, and I don't think everybody should know about everything, much less about the "right to repair" (much more important stuff for people to learn about, including politics and/or gas prices and other things that affect someone more). I'm merely stating a fact: the "right to repair" is not something that has been covered in any degree for the regular persons to know or care about. Most of those that do are already familiar with the tech scene, if not as technies, then as gadget lovers and tinkerers.

coldtea 4y ago

>I'm not so sure about that; I've certainly met plenty of people who did not understand it. HN is not representative of the wider tech community. Well, people understand it just fine. It's just that the definitive allure of FOSS is not what the purists think it is. purist: FOSS is about freedom (to work on the source, release changs as FOSS, etc) real world: what I care about is 70% the code being available to use for free and 30% the ability for others (and me in some cases) to edit it and release my changes. Yeah, I do understand it's not the same as mere "freeware". But for most intents and purposes that the part I care most about, but I also like the FOSS aspect because it means I can get more community stuff for it, and I don't depend on a single vendor releasing it.

tendstofortytwo 4y ago

> HN is not representative of the wider tech community. But we are on HN right now...