5 ms·

Ask HN: Right to Repair for Software?

62 points by pabs3 4y ago

How would you implement a right to repair for software in 2023? Perhaps you could change copyright law to require either public source code or source code escrow before software could be eligible for copyright protection. Plus some default rights, like right to modification, rebuild and reinstallation for individuals.

pwg 4y ago
This is an already solved problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl
josephcsible 4y ago
If I were dictator for a day, here's what I'd do: 1. Software would become entirely non-copyrightable 2. Software that infringes on a patent claim would be prima facie evidence of the claim's invalidity 3. Distributing any software in a way that would violate the AGPLv3 would be illegal (with the exception that if you had access to binaries but not the full corresponding source for a program prior to this change, you could still freely distribute everything you do have afterwards), and both upstream authors and downstream recipients would have standing to sue over it
autoexec 4y ago
At the very least DRM and the DMCA shouldn't prevent people from creating and distributing their own fixes where they can. Patching/debugging/decompiling/modifying should be protected. I love the idea of source code escrow as a requirement for copyright protection. If it were up to me, a DRM free copy of every work would need to be submitted to the copyright office for full copyright protection and that agency would publish and make available every work at copyright.gov automatically the moment the copyright on that work lapsed (ideally something that should happen in less than 10 years) while the works still protected would display a countdown clock showing the time until it's released to the public domain along with a list of reachable contacts for the copyright holders so people know who to contact if they don't want to wait.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  So I guess anything requiring significant R&D will on success become part of Microsoft Teams or AWS after <10 years (seven? six?), providing them with essentially free R&D and incentivising smaller companies to lock in users and abandon products frequently.
  - zerodensity 4y ago
    If something fits either Microsoft Teams or AWS and is successful for some other product they will copy it way before any competing closed source opens up. Not doing so will be bad for business.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    It means all the copyrighted code used in Teams and AWS will also become free for everyone to benefit from. That's the entire deal. It's better for everyone, better for art, and better for tech when information and culture is freed and people can incorporate it into their own works as well as learn from and build on what came before them. Copyright only protected those works for a limited time to encourage the creation of new works by making financial success possible but not perpetual. In a world where we can publish globally in an instant and at near zero cost, seven years or so is plenty of time to make investment worthwhile, no matter if that investment is in time, talent, or R&D. It's not as if the copyright owner (which for commercial works is almost never the same person as the creator) can't make money on something just because it's in the public domain either.
mikewarot 4y ago
Even fully open sources software can't be "repaired" when its dependencies break. There are a wide range of programs that broke when Python 2 went away. As for the law, any software no longer for sale, or older than 10 years old should lose all copyright/IP protection, which ever happens first. Anyone should be able to write/support a Windows XP,7 or 8 clone at this point, along with Office, Exchange, etc. up to 2012 --- Warning -- Strong message (rant) to follow Uppity programmers calling themselves software "engineers" act in almost totally the opposite manner of a true engineering discipline. They hold "legacy" in contempt, and break things in the name of "progress" or "safety" at odds with their stated goals. They ignore the lessons of history, and keep re-inventing the same things every decade or two. You can still plug a BC-232 radio manufactured in the late 1940s into the wall and receive broadcast signals. You're effectively prohibited from running a web browser or telephone from 10 years ago because of planned obsolesce. This needs to stop!
- hulitu 4y ago
  > You're effectively prohibited from running a web browser or telephone from 10 years ago because of planned obsolesce. But, but, but it is for your own security. /s
- pabs3 4y ago
  Those Python 2 programs can reasonably easily be repaired by porting them to Python 3.
  - bdamm 4y ago
    This is exactly the thing. If the difference between python 2 and 3 is so small that a program can be easily ported, then WHY did there need to be a difference at all?
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Usually change happens because the old way was worse and the new way is better. For each individual porting change, you would have to look up the appropriate PEPs to discover why the change was made.
Nocturium 4y ago
If you're in the EU, you could use EU Directive 2009/24/EC. Someone with a better grasp of the law should check this, but you should be allowed to decompile & fix parts of the program which causes "interoperability" problems. It doesn't matter what EULA says or if it's copyrighted code. EDIT: appartently there was a ruling in the Court of Justice of European Union on this https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5b1193c-f423-4f96-bca5-03f5145ecf15 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5b1193c-f423...
madsbuch 4y ago
I think a start is in ensuring proper rights to browser extensions. The Garmin Connect cookie banner was broken. It kept showing up on all reloads despite acceptance. In the end the add blocker fixed the problem by entirely removing the cookie banner. I would say that is the first level of right to repair for software.
windex 4y ago
I currently have subscription payment fatigue. I'd really like a list of "One Time Payment" software. Are there app bundlers who resell subscriptions? Like if I just want to use an app only a couple of times?
enriquto 4y ago
> How would you implement a right to repair for software in 2023? What has 2023 do to with anything? The four essential freedoms for software were written more than thirty years ago and today are more relevant than ever: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms To answer your question: any government mandated software, or software used, or bought, or promoted by, or paid for by the government should be free software.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  I used to work in defense, should that software be open source?
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    Security by obscurity is the weakest form.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Everyone loves this phrase but it's far from a universal truth. Sure, it applies to shipped software, but I'm not sure that it applies to military hardware. Regardless, you really think that military hardware should be open sourced?
      - schwartzworld 4y ago
        First of all, the GP comment was talking about software, not hardware. Something made by the military to be consumed by only them probably doesn't need to be open sourced. Same thing as if you write a program for yourself that only you use. Once something is intended to be consumed by the public, it should absolutely be open sourced. Voting machine software, tax filing software, etc.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        What about software that simulates hardware? That's a thing. I agree though, I just don't think it's an absolute rule. Voting machines and other stuff that the public uses probably should be.
amelius 4y ago
How would that apply to SaaS, where everyone seems to be heading?
Eleison23 4y ago
[dead]
solatic 4y ago
Abandonware should not be copyright-protected. The process of business dissolution should require sending a copy of all proprietary source-code to customers (assuming the business was not acquired / there is no new owner of the source code), and businesses that refuse to support legacy software with no upgrade path should be liable to provide the source code to such customers. I don't think right-to-repair for commercially supported software makes sense. If you care about the right to modify and rebuild, put source access into the contract. But you have a commercial relationship, so the vendor is supposed to listen to your feature and bugfix requests. If they're unwilling to consider source access or feature/bugifx requests, don't buy from them, it sounds like they don't care about your business.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
giantg2 4y ago
Nah, I wouldn't try that stuff. The paradigms are different. You repair physical stuff because parts wear out. Software doesn't wear out. In my opinion, it would be better to set a support window where a company must provide updates to fix flaws or security issues based on the type of device. OSes could be 5 years, safety recalls for vehicles are already covered. I'm not sure any action is really necessary on this.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  Software doesn't wear out?! The landscape changes constantly and updates are often necessitated by changes in the security landscape. I don't expect the manufacturer to do the maintenance work indefinitely, but don't understand why perfectly good hardware should be turned into e-waste after a short number of years despite there being people who are willing to do all the work. I can imagine a future in which a company has to guarantee a certain time frame for security updates and, once that time span ends, allow third party access. This would at the very least involve unlocking the bootloader so that reimplantations can be installed.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Often times the hardware is obsolete and has security issues by the time the software is. I don't see any real benefits. What hardware gets turned into waste due solely to software standing in the way?
francois_h 4y ago
Software is limited to IP. You can’t really compare hardware right to repair with software. If you use OS software then you can chop and change as you want as long as you merge back changes to the original code. I doubt however that companies like Microsoft would allow you to update the Operating System just because you don’t like the way something works.
dns_snek 4y ago
1. When a company goes out of business, stops selling older versions of their hardware/software for a period longer than 12 months, they should be required to release their source code under a FOSS license. "Use it or lose it". 2. Mandate release of software developed using public funds under AGPL (e.g. government portals) or GPL, with obvious exception carved out for defense projects 3. Mandate implementation of manual overrides that allow owners to flash unsigned firmware/software on their devices, similar to Android phones 4. Legalize and ban EULA prohibitions against reverse engineering 5. Legalize and ban EULA prohibitions against unauthorized changes, carve out exceptions where strictly necessary (e.g. medical equipment and equipment critical to public safety, online games?)
WirelessGigabit 4y ago
I recently read a post where a company didn't release a 64-bit driver for their scanner. This should absolutely be banned. Either release the source code, or build the code yourself. There is no need to throw away a perfectly good scanner, which you can still get repaired, simply because the company prefers to sell you a new one.
- francois_h 4y ago
  Surely the 32-bit driver would still work on 64-bit systems?
0dayz 4y ago
I think it's less about copyright than the lack of nuance with copyright, in that copyright is given to whoever "owns" the right nit the creator(s), nor is there a way for the owner to automatically sell licenses and get royalties automatically. Nir is there licenses for specific purposes, such as companies wanting to create their own franchise or a content creator wanting to use said copyright once in their work (even if you got permission you can be liable).

_Algernon_ 4y ago
That's the claimed reasoning, yes. Is that actually true though? It may be from a pure economic perspective focused on a business that can socialize externalities. Sometimes new developments reduces development time. On the other hand, the externalities of that is that a modern computer performs worse running equivalent tasks today in the browser than a native app 15 years ago on hardware from that time. Lucky for businesses that they aren't held responsible for the ewaste they helped produce.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Web development isn't mandatory, you can still have a native app in 2023.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    The point is that the lack of businesses being made responsible for the externalities they cause disincentives native apps, not that it is impossible. If 90% of apps necessary for normal life are only available as poor web versions it drives obsolescence no matter what the remaining 10% do.
    - pca006132 4y ago
      Why is web app a bad thing though? Most of the apps do not require much performance and the web version can also be pretty fast, at least sufficient for users. I think the same author writing that crappy web app will produce worse native apps if forced to do so. Web apps is better than native as they are automatically running the latest version, platform independent (windows, mac, linux, android, ios), in some sense more secure. Instead of asking people to write more native apps, I think we should rather ask them to write more quality web apps if they don't need native capabilities.
      - _Algernon_ 4y ago
        Try running eg. Libre Office and gdocs on a 10+ year old laptop. The difference is night and day. And that is a web app which should not be particularly demanding (essentially text entry). E2A: Also, try running Figma on an older device. It's basically unusable. No native version, and a native version would be much better.
        pca006132 4y ago
        No, google docs is not just text entry, it is much more complicated than that due to synchronization and they did not try to optimize it well IMO. Text entry, even with highlighting and rich text, can be fast with web app, see VSCode and markdown applications for example. As an example, see Atom vs VSCode. We thought building a code editor with electron will lead to something slow like Atom, but m$ later proved that it is possible to build something fast. Perhaps not as simple as native, but it can be done.
      - 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
        I started writing yet another rant about how most HN users don't care about the rest of the planet, but then thought better of it. Long story short: way more people on Earth are using cheap (and thus low-power) hardware then you probably think. And it isn't necessarily old.
- drekipus 4y ago
  > That's the claimed reasoning, yes. Is that actually true though? yes. one of the changes (and in my experience, the most problematic change) was the removal of the keyword "print" it was a poor choice at the start to treat "print" like a keyword. it is a simple, breaking change to remove it, easily automated (ps: just add brackets), and now the language is more consistent and flexible. The only reason to keep it is to not "touch" things. but it is easily mitigated, so that isnt a good enough reason imo. I much prefer a consistent language. otherwise I'd stick with PHP.
  - account42 4y ago
    Is it easilty mitigated though? By a python programmer, sure. By another programmer, ok. By your grandpa that just wants to run that python script to organize his stamp collection that has worked for decades? No. For something as popular as python there will be thousands such people. Stuff that will simply NOT get fixed. But that cost is easily ignored by the original developers.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  There's no point positing a less likely reason. Python wanted to incorporate Unicode fully. There was no way to do that that they came up with that didn't break a lot of software. You can read the documentation and see the discussion. It's not companies; it's a few people in Python leadership deciding.

bheadmaster 4y ago

> Uppity programmers calling themselves software "engineers" act in almost totally the opposite manner of a true engineering discipline. They hold "legacy" in contempt, and break things in the name of "progress" or "safety" at odds with their stated goals. They ignore the lessons of history, and keep re-inventing the same things every decade or two. The reason for that is that software is much easier to change than hardware. You cannot expect every person in the world to update their radio equipment every couple years - it's too expensive - but it's somewhat reasonable to expect people to install new software, especially if it can be done for free over the internet. It's just economics at play.

imachine1980_ 4y ago
That's not true most manufacters can change the machine yearly but try to change sap for oracle, or your custom solution for sap, and you are spending million of dollars in multi years projects, I'm not expecting free and cheap software to end , but having a game than breaks in 10 years isn't problematic, but pushing delicate software for no reason, that could break in 5 years, becouse is impossible to the customer to know the dependencies of the program, or how robust is under stress test and cybersecurity, means we lack engeniering discipline not economics reasons.
- pca006132 4y ago
  I think this is purely economic reasons, engineers working on that project is unlikely the people suggesting such a project...
- foul 4y ago
  Software is still easier and cheaper to change than what you'd spend for changing hardware, data and users. It's every time a multi-year project for big programs because of data and accustoming users for their habits and needs.
mikewarot 4y ago
>it can be done for free over the internet. The cost to manufacture an executable is effectively zero, so its easy to incorrectly assume that means there are no costs. The cost to integrate an executable is NEVER zero, there are always costs. Windows is far, FAR less reliable on Wednesday morning because of "Patch Tuesday", this is a substantial and real cost. The same is true for any system that implements "security patches" and feature "upgrades".

stormdennis 4y ago

After 10 years should farmers have to give away their land for free too?

5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
If land could be replicated with a click of a button with close to zero cost, then sure.
- stormdennis 4y ago
  If you're implying that the farmer would still have an income then it's not a valid analogy. If I open sourced my software that I've been continuously developing for more than 20 years my income would drop to almost zero, immediately.
  - account42 4y ago
    Your changes made in the last ten years would still be your exclusive monopoly so your revenue would probably not change much if you really have been continously developing it. But even if this would destroy your business model, that doesn't mean it would not be a good idea for society as a whole. Business models become obsolete all the time. If there is enough demand for your software, you will be able to fund the development of it even without might-as-well-be-perpetual exclusive control.
rndgermandude 4y ago
Farmers have to put in constant work to generate revenue. "IP" revenue too often entails create-once-earn-forever. However, "IP" often has a higher upfront investment attached to it, and often is not (as) "scalable", unlike farming. What I am trying to say is that both things are very different in details where it matters, so I think this is a rather flawed analogy. Maybe a closer analogy would be landowners who rent out land. Should a person who bought land 10 years ago be able to generate revenue from renting it to a farmer?
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Farmers pay property tax and use the land productively. Property tax is an incentive to use the land productively.
account42 4y ago
If it is imaginary land that they have thought up, yes.
- stormdennis 4y ago
  Meaning you don't value the time that someone puts into building software as highly as the time a farmer puts into paying his mortgage.
  - account42 4y ago
    Ten years is an eternity when it comes to software. But yes, software developers (and other people creating things covered under copyright) are overvalued compared to those creating physical things. And that valuation is created entirely due to IP law. How is that fair?
    - stormdennis 4y ago
      >And that valuation is created entirely due to IP law. In that case, the value of land is created entirely by property law. A farmer has the exclusive right to land from the existing fixed supply that the entire world has available to it. He didn't create it and no one else can use it. Whereas a software developer makes something new. Nobody else was deprived of anything pre-existing. Less justification for taking code from a developer than land from a farmer.
hexagonwin 4y ago
Farmers will keep generate revenue with their lands 10, 20 years later. But Microsoft won't generate revenue with Office 2003.. This is whole different.