3 ms·

Say I want to repair Microsoft Word. One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code, build tooling, any engineeri

by mdmglr 3y ago

Say I want to repair Microsoft Word. One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code, build tooling, any engineering documents and perhaps access to the dev team depending on how far this law would go. Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. Microsoft already does the latter though maybe not to the level desired. They have C#, VBScript and COM. I recall using COM Interop in C# to get access to online presence data from Microsoft Lync.

rlpb 3y ago
> Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. I routinely encounter bugs in software that wouldn't be fixable with some API. How about something like "it crashes on startup when I have graphics driver X installed" for example, if it turns out to be due to a bug in Word rather than in the graphics driver? This is the sort of weird interaction that usually leads to me wanting to fix things. IME, API access tends to be about additional functionality or integrations, not bugfixing. I equate "right to repair" with the latter, not the former.
trasz4 3y ago
>One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code Not really, no. There are examples of software being repaired, or even completely rebuilt, without access to the original source code - from Falcon BMS to (parts of) Microsoft's own Excel.
- thfuran 3y ago
  That there are examples of something being done doesn't mean that it's a practical system. Just saying "Here's a hex editor. Have at it" isn't meaningfully supporting a right to repair.
  - singpolyma3 3y ago
    And yet it would be better than the current situation where the hex editor is a copyright infringement.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      It would be an improvement, but I think it's closer to an update of first-sale doctrine than it is to a meaningfully supported right to repair.
- pabs3 3y ago
  There are reasonably good decompilers already, and the right to use them being added to the law would probably lead to improving them.
- mdmglr 3y ago
  No doubt. Are you referring to using tools like ida?
2rsf 3y ago
I wanted to answer that those laws are not about the enabling tools, but I am probably wrong as some of the suggestions are to "require automobile manufacturers to sell the same service materials and diagnostics directly to consumers or to independent mechanics as they provide exclusively to their dealerships." So diagnostics and ready materials, not the blueprints and access to the raw materials or machinery. You should be able to but spare parts and make sure they work, but not manufacture them yourself. What is the equivalent in software? splitting the software to libraries with known APIs?

by mdmglr 3y ago

rlpb 3y ago

> Another implementation, that I feel is far fairer is allowing me to interface with Microsoft Word so I could develop an alternate route to repair whatever functionality isn't working. I routinely encounter bugs in software that wouldn't be fixable with some API. How about something like "it crashes on startup when I have graphics driver X installed" for example, if it turns out to be due to a bug in Word rather than in the graphics driver? This is the sort of weird interaction that usually leads to me wanting to fix things. IME, API access tends to be about additional functionality or integrations, not bugfixing. I equate "right to repair" with the latter, not the former.

trasz4 3y ago

>One implementation of this right is requiring Microsoft to give me access to the source code Not really, no. There are examples of software being repaired, or even completely rebuilt, without access to the original source code - from Falcon BMS to (parts of) Microsoft's own Excel.

thfuran 3y ago
That there are examples of something being done doesn't mean that it's a practical system. Just saying "Here's a hex editor. Have at it" isn't meaningfully supporting a right to repair.
- singpolyma3 3y ago
  And yet it would be better than the current situation where the hex editor is a copyright infringement.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    It would be an improvement, but I think it's closer to an update of first-sale doctrine than it is to a meaningfully supported right to repair.
pabs3 3y ago
There are reasonably good decompilers already, and the right to use them being added to the law would probably lead to improving them.
mdmglr 3y ago
No doubt. Are you referring to using tools like ida?

2rsf 3y ago

I wanted to answer that those laws are not about the enabling tools, but I am probably wrong as some of the suggestions are to "require automobile manufacturers to sell the same service materials and diagnostics directly to consumers or to independent mechanics as they provide exclusively to their dealerships." So diagnostics and ready materials, not the blueprints and access to the raw materials or machinery. You should be able to but spare parts and make sure they work, but not manufacture them yourself. What is the equivalent in software? splitting the software to libraries with known APIs?