3 ms·

IMO, If you buy hardware, you should get firmware src too allow porting to whatever OS you want to run

by jmclnx 2y ago

Cumpiler69 2y ago
If you buy SW should you also get the source code to port it to the HW you want or to make mods for it?
- ongy 2y ago
  Yes.
  - DowsingSpoon 2y ago
    Obviously, if we’d like to require programmers to release software in source code form then we’re going to need some rules. If programmers are made to release software in some source code form then what languages should we require? Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Though, it would do no good to legislate the programming community into a religious war over FP or OOP. My proposal, however modest, is that the law require software be released in some kind of well-specified, portable language. Something succinct and powerful. Something symbolic, abstract, and much higher-level than the underlying hardware. Hm. How about x86_64 machine code?
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      That's generally handled with a "preferred form" clause -- it must be released in the form it was written in. If you originally wrote the firmware in Brainfuck, it's fine to release in Brainfuck. But you can't transpile to Brainfuck and release that.
    - fredg333 2y ago
      This isn’t obvious at all. Does everyone need to speak German for global logistics to work? Is all software out there Ruby? Why the sudden need for a rule that clearly isn’t being followed now and yet no giant foot has squashed us. The well specified form is local machine state. Run someone’s Ruby, automate capturing the machine state. You want it a certain way, be the change you want to see in the world.
    - j16sdiz 2y ago
      > Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Ugh? Are you trying to make selling software written in brianfuck illegal? > portable language So all assembly bootstrap code are outlawed?
    - ongy 2y ago
      While this looks hard, the FSF has long ago provided us with a solution. The preferred form to make modifications on.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    There is a pretty good argument that this should be required for copyright protection. The point of copyright is supposed to be to ultimately get works for the public domain, when the copyright expires. If the source code has never been released then it's failing at its purpose. Once a work is in the public domain the public is supposed to be able to make derivatives etc. So to have copyright protection for software you should have to release the source code.
    - jandrese 2y ago
      A noble idea, but it should be pointed out that of all of the software ever written on planet Earth, only Ada Lovelace's somewhat notional code for a non-existent machine would be in the public domain in the year 2024. The earliest you would expect to see "modern" code entering the public domain is sometime in the 2060s, and that would be written in Plankalkül.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The same legislative change would do well to moderate copyright terms.
close04 2y ago
Not sure if we can go that far but I'd be happy is the manufacturers would be forced to put on the label how many years they'll support the product and at what level. And perhaps when the product is fully out of support, all the related resources should be published so it can be repaired and supported further on a best effort basis by the community now that the manufacturer no longer loses any money on it.
- _blk 2y ago
  IMHO, optimally there should be no force (regulation) necessary at all. It'd be much more beneficial if manufacturers saw the benefits because consumers choose according to the benefits they see. Sometimes we have to ask to make a need known - esp. if we're willing to pay a premium for it. So I see the ball in our park. If there's demand but no supply, we found a niche.
  - close04 2y ago
    > optimally there should be no force (regulation) necessary Ideally. But realistically most of the reason we have some right today is regulation. Warranty isn't something most manufacturers would offer once they are too big to fail but regulation demands it. Same with certain levels of quality (certifications), etc.
drdaeman 2y ago
If a vendor wants their software proprietary and secret, I can respect that and would be perfectly fine with full hardware schematics and documentation. Since that's something I physically own anyway. In the ancient times, providing schematics (and even repair manuals) for things like TVs or cars was the norm. Obviously, that's not happening, but as a fantasy wish - I would love to see this becoming a thing again.

IMO, If you buy hardware, you should get firmware src too allow porting to whatever OS you want to run

by jmclnx 2y ago

IMO, If you buy hardware, you should get firmware src too allow porting to whatever OS you want to run

Cumpiler69 2y ago

If you buy SW should you also get the source code to port it to the HW you want or to make mods for it?

ongy 2y ago
Yes.
- DowsingSpoon 2y ago
  Obviously, if we’d like to require programmers to release software in source code form then we’re going to need some rules. If programmers are made to release software in some source code form then what languages should we require? Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Though, it would do no good to legislate the programming community into a religious war over FP or OOP. My proposal, however modest, is that the law require software be released in some kind of well-specified, portable language. Something succinct and powerful. Something symbolic, abstract, and much higher-level than the underlying hardware. Hm. How about x86_64 machine code?
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    That's generally handled with a "preferred form" clause -- it must be released in the form it was written in. If you originally wrote the firmware in Brainfuck, it's fine to release in Brainfuck. But you can't transpile to Brainfuck and release that.
  - fredg333 2y ago
    This isn’t obvious at all. Does everyone need to speak German for global logistics to work? Is all software out there Ruby? Why the sudden need for a rule that clearly isn’t being followed now and yet no giant foot has squashed us. The well specified form is local machine state. Run someone’s Ruby, automate capturing the machine state. You want it a certain way, be the change you want to see in the world.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    > Clearly, Brainfuck is out of the question, for example. Ugh? Are you trying to make selling software written in brianfuck illegal? > portable language So all assembly bootstrap code are outlawed?
  - ongy 2y ago
    While this looks hard, the FSF has long ago provided us with a solution. The preferred form to make modifications on.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  There is a pretty good argument that this should be required for copyright protection. The point of copyright is supposed to be to ultimately get works for the public domain, when the copyright expires. If the source code has never been released then it's failing at its purpose. Once a work is in the public domain the public is supposed to be able to make derivatives etc. So to have copyright protection for software you should have to release the source code.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    A noble idea, but it should be pointed out that of all of the software ever written on planet Earth, only Ada Lovelace's somewhat notional code for a non-existent machine would be in the public domain in the year 2024. The earliest you would expect to see "modern" code entering the public domain is sometime in the 2060s, and that would be written in Plankalkül.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The same legislative change would do well to moderate copyright terms.

close04 2y ago

Not sure if we can go that far but I'd be happy is the manufacturers would be forced to put on the label how many years they'll support the product and at what level. And perhaps when the product is fully out of support, all the related resources should be published so it can be repaired and supported further on a best effort basis by the community now that the manufacturer no longer loses any money on it.

_blk 2y ago
IMHO, optimally there should be no force (regulation) necessary at all. It'd be much more beneficial if manufacturers saw the benefits because consumers choose according to the benefits they see. Sometimes we have to ask to make a need known - esp. if we're willing to pay a premium for it. So I see the ball in our park. If there's demand but no supply, we found a niche.
- close04 2y ago
  > optimally there should be no force (regulation) necessary Ideally. But realistically most of the reason we have some right today is regulation. Warranty isn't something most manufacturers would offer once they are too big to fail but regulation demands it. Same with certain levels of quality (certifications), etc.

drdaeman 2y ago

If a vendor wants their software proprietary and secret, I can respect that and would be perfectly fine with full hardware schematics and documentation. Since that's something I physically own anyway. In the ancient times, providing schematics (and even repair manuals) for things like TVs or cars was the norm. Obviously, that's not happening, but as a fantasy wish - I would love to see this becoming a thing again.