3 ms·
> mandatory certification (enforced by patents/other IP protections) > The hacker in me hates the idea If the hacker in you really hates this, then why insist
by lucideer 3y ago
> mandatory certification (enforced by patents/other IP protections)
> The hacker in me hates the idea
If the hacker in you really hates this, then why insist on enforcing via means that restrict both vendor and user freedom (IP) instead of regulatory enforcement that exclusively targets vendors & leaves hackers free to hack?
- thriftwy 3y agoHackers want not just hack for themselves but share the product of their craft with other parties without going through fences.
- shermantanktop 3y agoSome do. Some don’t. The various uses of the term “hacking” do not universally require tech to be shared. Long before RMS and other ideology-oriented types, people were adapting commercial tech to local purposes which the vendor didn’t intend and wouldn’t endorse.
- lucideer 3y agoAre you implying that regulation need put up more such fences than IP restrictions?
- denotational 3y agoWhat would the regulatory enforcement look like? If I develop a new connector, how do I get the regulator to start enforcing that everyone who uses it is following my standard? What happens when I find a way to extend the specification in a safe, backwards compatible manner, but this conflicts with the standard as enforced by the regulator? I’m not saying that these are insurmountable problems, but I feel like the regulator should focus on issues such as safety, and interoperability should be enforced by the company/consortium that develops the standard in the first place.