5 ms·

This is the same sort of middle-ground I increasingly find myself advocating for, with one caveat: once something is no longer being manufactured (hardware) or

This is the same sort of middle-ground I increasingly find myself advocating for, with one caveat: once something is no longer being manufactured (hardware) or sold and supported (software), it should be entirely open sourced by law. After all, why shouldn’t (as a random example) the iPhone 4 be FOSS hardware and software in 2024? It’s perfectly usable if a bit sluggish by modern standards, could reduce eWaste (albeit by a small amount), and gives customers control over what they purchase. There’s also the additional disincentive to companies in the yearly release cadence or ending support too early just to drive sales. I look back at the mounds of perfectly functional hardware amassed over my life, hobbled or bricked solely by software a vendor refuses to fix or otherwise allow end users to repair themselves. A Wii U with bad flash, an Xbox with a corrupted bootloader, a smart TV with a bad OS that crashes the display, a universal remote no longer supported by its manufacturer with new codes or firmware. All of these should’ve been unshackled the moment their manufacturers abandoned them, so that their owners can fix and support them indefinitely if they so choose.

hansvm 2y ago
My initial counterargument was going to bring up that Garmin example GP added, since largely the same valuable code is likely shared across many devices. Reflecting further though, the harm of a manufacturer crippling a physical device does seem worth guarding against regardless, and if the code is really that valuable then such a law might encourage longer support lifetimes (or, at the very least, not crippling a perfectly good piece of hardware).
- juicypt 2y ago
  I think there's a reasonable middle ground here. I would think it's fine for them to keep their algorithms closed-source, but be required to opensource the minimum amount of firmware to allow access to all of the hardware: bootloader, CPU, storage, memory, display, and sensors. No need to reveal any trade secrets at all. The above stuff is not the secret sauce that makes people buy their watches anyway: they use some of the most basic hardware in the market at their price point.
  - palata 2y ago
    This is exactly what I meant. I don't want Garmin to give me access to their algorithms. I want to have a way to flash a minimal system on it if I want to play with it. For something like Marshall smart speakers, it may end up making those products actually good: I could totally imagine an open source system for smart speakers. And that would be infinitely better than the crap Marshall put on the one I own. It works well for routers: on many routers you can install openwrt or opnsense.
kube-system 2y ago
> once something is no longer being manufactured (hardware) or sold and supported (software), it should be entirely open sourced by law. There are a lot of practical barriers to this being that simple. A couple of common examples: 1. Third-party dependencies are a thing. Many pieces of hardware or software contain pieces of other hardware and software from other organizations, and the end vendor may frequently not even have the right themselves to open source them. 2. Many products are abandoned when businesses fail, in which case, there may be no staff to open-source them.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Third-party dependencies are a thing. Many pieces of hardware or software contain pieces of other hardware and software from other organizations, and the end vendor may frequently not even have the right themselves to open source them. That wouldn't be an issue if it was a legal requirement because then they would all be subject to the same rule or be unable to market their software because it doesn't satisfy the requirement. > Many products are abandoned when businesses fail, in which case, there may be no staff to open-source them. Which is why they should be open source to begin with. But what excuse does this provide to the companies that still exist?
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > That wouldn't be an issue if it was a legal requirement because then they would all be subject to the same rule Just because a product is discontinued doesn't mean every component inside of it is also discontinued. Nor does it mean the restrictions on those are based in copyright. They may be restricted by other legal mechanisms other than copyright. > or be unable to market their software because it doesn't satisfy the requirement. > Which is why they should be open source to begin with. If you want to propose making closed source hardware or software illegal, just propose that. What you're effectively arguing for here, is that people own the rights to everything in their entire development stack, which is pretty unreasonable for any modern commercial software/hardware development. Even many prominent and celebrated open source hardware projects would not comply with this. For example: every open-source phone project. Not a single one could even possibly comply with this law because open-source baseband firmware does not exist, and cannot exist due to spectrum licensing requirements.

hansvm 2y ago

My initial counterargument was going to bring up that Garmin example GP added, since largely the same valuable code is likely shared across many devices. Reflecting further though, the harm of a manufacturer crippling a physical device does seem worth guarding against regardless, and if the code is really that valuable then such a law might encourage longer support lifetimes (or, at the very least, not crippling a perfectly good piece of hardware).

juicypt 2y ago
I think there's a reasonable middle ground here. I would think it's fine for them to keep their algorithms closed-source, but be required to opensource the minimum amount of firmware to allow access to all of the hardware: bootloader, CPU, storage, memory, display, and sensors. No need to reveal any trade secrets at all. The above stuff is not the secret sauce that makes people buy their watches anyway: they use some of the most basic hardware in the market at their price point.
- palata 2y ago
  This is exactly what I meant. I don't want Garmin to give me access to their algorithms. I want to have a way to flash a minimal system on it if I want to play with it. For something like Marshall smart speakers, it may end up making those products actually good: I could totally imagine an open source system for smart speakers. And that would be infinitely better than the crap Marshall put on the one I own. It works well for routers: on many routers you can install openwrt or opnsense.

kube-system 2y ago

> once something is no longer being manufactured (hardware) or sold and supported (software), it should be entirely open sourced by law. There are a lot of practical barriers to this being that simple. A couple of common examples: 1. Third-party dependencies are a thing. Many pieces of hardware or software contain pieces of other hardware and software from other organizations, and the end vendor may frequently not even have the right themselves to open source them. 2. Many products are abandoned when businesses fail, in which case, there may be no staff to open-source them.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Third-party dependencies are a thing. Many pieces of hardware or software contain pieces of other hardware and software from other organizations, and the end vendor may frequently not even have the right themselves to open source them. That wouldn't be an issue if it was a legal requirement because then they would all be subject to the same rule or be unable to market their software because it doesn't satisfy the requirement. > Many products are abandoned when businesses fail, in which case, there may be no staff to open-source them. Which is why they should be open source to begin with. But what excuse does this provide to the companies that still exist?
- kube-system 2y ago
  > That wouldn't be an issue if it was a legal requirement because then they would all be subject to the same rule Just because a product is discontinued doesn't mean every component inside of it is also discontinued. Nor does it mean the restrictions on those are based in copyright. They may be restricted by other legal mechanisms other than copyright. > or be unable to market their software because it doesn't satisfy the requirement. > Which is why they should be open source to begin with. If you want to propose making closed source hardware or software illegal, just propose that. What you're effectively arguing for here, is that people own the rights to everything in their entire development stack, which is pretty unreasonable for any modern commercial software/hardware development. Even many prominent and celebrated open source hardware projects would not comply with this. For example: every open-source phone project. Not a single one could even possibly comply with this law because open-source baseband firmware does not exist, and cannot exist due to spectrum licensing requirements.