3 ms·

It's an interesting idea, but it needs some refinement. > either need to open-source everything That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't eve

It's an interesting idea, but it needs some refinement. > either need to open-source everything That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. Another thing is build reproducibility, the ability to actually flash/install the code, etc. It would be desirable to have all that, but it's far from simple. > allow everyone who ever bought one to return it for a full refund. Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? I would say something like a trade-in program, where you get a % of the original value depending on overall condition. But then it gets tricky as it's difficult to write into law, what "good condition" does actually mean. What if the device has two screens, but only one is broken? What about components that tend to wear out or break during normal use (batteries, straps, hinges)? But having that process in place could also actually help us recycle more stuff. Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. That'd just get the bigger corps even more entrenched (while they figure out the "legitimate interest cookie" equivalent of still screwing you over).

josephcsible 3y ago
> That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. > Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? Yes. The idea is that it'd be better for things to continue to be safely usable rather than to have to become e-waste, so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. > Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. Software updates are a lot cheaper than full warranties, and if they make all of their stuff open-source then there'd be nothing else they have to do at all.
- rollcat 3y ago
  > I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. Then perhaps start with a copyright reform, otherwise I think you're trying to "solve" too many problems all at once. > so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. Meaning only the already wealthy companies can afford to take the risk. You're further empowering the rich.

josephcsible 3y ago

> That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. > Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? Yes. The idea is that it'd be better for things to continue to be safely usable rather than to have to become e-waste, so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. > Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. Software updates are a lot cheaper than full warranties, and if they make all of their stuff open-source then there'd be nothing else they have to do at all.

rollcat 3y ago
> I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside. Then perhaps start with a copyright reform, otherwise I think you're trying to "solve" too many problems all at once. > so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them. Meaning only the already wealthy companies can afford to take the risk. You're further empowering the rich.