3 ms·

I appreciate the intent, but I suspect that’s not something they could do as I think they’re mostly using third party modems and presumably drivers still and ma

by olliej 4y ago

I appreciate the intent, but I suspect that’s not something they could do as I think they’re mostly using third party modems and presumably drivers still and many of those companies are utter asses. But also what does open source driver mean here - does it mean for any OS, public domain, etc? Because if so then you’re talking about the government requiring people to give up their property.

fezfight 4y ago
Not people, but I'd like incumbent mega-corporations be compelled to not lock down the devices they sell. And device drivers for android, at minimum, since the ASOP folks could use them now. Linux would be great because it would eventually thrive in an environment like that.
hedora 4y ago
The first sale doctrine also forces people to give up their property (when they sell it). From a consumer protection perspectiv, it seems completely reasonable to say hardware devices have to have FOSS drivers, and that all hardware/software errata must be documented in public for at least N years. That could be watered down by only requiring the open sourcing / public docs when the manufacturer decides to drop driver support for the current release of the phone OS.
- olliej 4y ago
  What are you talking about? First sale doctrine means that if you sell something, you've sold it and no longer own it. It does not mean you own the IP that went into making that product. Buying a car doesn't give you the rights to the manufacturers patents, or the design of the engine, it gives you ownership of the final product. If someone sells you a computer with linux on it you don't suddenly have ownership of the linux copyright. > From a consumer protection perspectiv, it seems completely reasonable to say hardware devices have to have FOSS drivers, and that all hardware/software errata must be documented in public for at least N years. Why? > That could be watered down by only requiring the open sourcing / public docs when the manufacturer decides to drop driver support for the current release of the phone OS. Again why? If your device still functions why should the manufacturer be required to give up ownership of their IP?
  - hedora 4y ago
    First sale doctrine is an example of the law taking away people’s property. Without it, sellers would (and did) claim to still own something (the device, copyright, and patent license have all been litigated) after selling it to someone else. Ending support for software on a network connected device is practically equivalent to revoking the license to the software that came with the device — it renders the device unfit for purpose. Requiring manufacturers to support everything forever is probably infeasible/uneconomical. There are precedents for using source code escrow to protect investors / purchasers in situations where companies become insolvent. Those same mechanisms could be used to protect consumers from phone manufacturers that decide to drop device support. Mandating FOSS licensing once the escrow agreement seems practical. Can you have a better legislative solution for ensuring phone operating systems are maintained in perpetuity?

by olliej 4y ago

fezfight 4y ago

Not people, but I'd like incumbent mega-corporations be compelled to not lock down the devices they sell. And device drivers for android, at minimum, since the ASOP folks could use them now. Linux would be great because it would eventually thrive in an environment like that.

hedora 4y ago

The first sale doctrine also forces people to give up their property (when they sell it). From a consumer protection perspectiv, it seems completely reasonable to say hardware devices have to have FOSS drivers, and that all hardware/software errata must be documented in public for at least N years. That could be watered down by only requiring the open sourcing / public docs when the manufacturer decides to drop driver support for the current release of the phone OS.

olliej 4y ago
What are you talking about? First sale doctrine means that if you sell something, you've sold it and no longer own it. It does not mean you own the IP that went into making that product. Buying a car doesn't give you the rights to the manufacturers patents, or the design of the engine, it gives you ownership of the final product. If someone sells you a computer with linux on it you don't suddenly have ownership of the linux copyright. > From a consumer protection perspectiv, it seems completely reasonable to say hardware devices have to have FOSS drivers, and that all hardware/software errata must be documented in public for at least N years. Why? > That could be watered down by only requiring the open sourcing / public docs when the manufacturer decides to drop driver support for the current release of the phone OS. Again why? If your device still functions why should the manufacturer be required to give up ownership of their IP?
- hedora 4y ago
  First sale doctrine is an example of the law taking away people’s property. Without it, sellers would (and did) claim to still own something (the device, copyright, and patent license have all been litigated) after selling it to someone else. Ending support for software on a network connected device is practically equivalent to revoking the license to the software that came with the device — it renders the device unfit for purpose. Requiring manufacturers to support everything forever is probably infeasible/uneconomical. There are precedents for using source code escrow to protect investors / purchasers in situations where companies become insolvent. Those same mechanisms could be used to protect consumers from phone manufacturers that decide to drop device support. Mandating FOSS licensing once the escrow agreement seems practical. Can you have a better legislative solution for ensuring phone operating systems are maintained in perpetuity?