4 ms·

I think software and firmware should be free if critical functionality depends on an Internet-based service. Or, it should at least be free whenever that servi

I think software and firmware should be free if critical functionality depends on an Internet-based service. Or, it should at least be free whenever that service gets discontinued. I've been thinking that perhaps to be able to market a product where critical functionality depends on commercial software connected services, a company should be required by law to provide their source code to a government agency that holds it in escrow. Then when the company goes out of business or just decides to discontinue the product then that agency will publish the source code under an open source license. This shouldn't just apply to firmware in connected devices, but to all commercial connected software. There are countless games that can't be played any more only because a company behind it has discontinued its DRM servers. Of course there are details that need to be worked out with how this will work in practice. The publisher will have to prove to some degree that the provided source code is sufficient. You'd have to prevent the publisher from circumventing the solution in a future software update. And the publisher would have to pay a free for the privilege, to be able to fund the agency.

crazygringo 2y ago
I am sympathetic toward the idea. However: > a company should be required by law to provide their source code to a government agency that holds it in escrow The reality is that a lot of code can be licensed from third parties, and there's no moral principle by which it would be right to expose and open-source their code. So I'm really not sure how workable or useful this would actually be.
- hoherd 2y ago
  When the end of Spotify Car Thing was announced this is what I expected. I thought these perfectly good devices had been built on license encumbered libraries that would prohibit open sourcing the code, and that all those hardware devices would go to waste. Thankfully that was not the case, but most of the time it is. It's amazing how much licensing controls how software is used, and thus how much systems and software designers should consider the license of the libraries and frameworks they choose.
- sowbug 2y ago
  Wouldn't the third parties be subject to the requirement as well?
  - thfuran 2y ago
    What if they're in a different jurisdiction?
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      How does that apply when you're releasing the source code in the jurisdiction where the law requires it? If they sue you there, the law there says they lose. If you're also in the other jurisdiction your subsidiary there doesn't have to release it so they don't. This is like, what happens when a work is in the public domain in one jurisdiction but not another? The answer is different things happen in different places. Also, obviously companies would then just not license software under terms that would cause legal trouble for them.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        >How does that apply when you're releasing the source code in the jurisdiction where the law requires it? That would depend on what exactly the requirement is and what exactly the third-party code is and is used for. Without the specifics, I'd say it seems plausible that the third party itself is not subject to the requirement but the firmware using the third-party code may be subject for both first- and third-party code.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        But then why is that a problem? The entity in the jurisdiction releases the code for the device they sell in the jurisdiction, whether they wrote it or licensed it, and doesn't license it under terms inconsistent with their legal obligation.
    - stonemetal12 2y ago
      Either they follow the law or it is illegal to sell in the covered jurisdiction. There are already US laws that work in that way. Consider DDT, if fruit was grown with DDT you can't sell it in the US. It doesn't matter that DDT is legal in the grower's country.
- throwaway494932 2y ago
  > The reality is that a lot of code can be licensed from third parties, and there's no moral principle by which it would be right to expose and open-source their code. This doesn't mean that they would have to expose somebody else's code, they would just have to use something else (or write their own)
- Zak 2y ago
  This objection only applies to past products. If the law in a big enough market required that sort of code escrow and eventual release, companies wouldn't build future products covered by that law on top of code they couldn't release.
- bombcar 2y ago
  You'd have to have some practical "ramp up" times, but anything that has been written can be written again. It could eventually result in the third-party libraries being fully replaced (good value) or them adapting so that they update their libraries yearly - sure you can get the 3 year old one open-source, but do you want to? id ran into this with the sound code for Doom, and Carmack regrets it (though I'm not sure they had many other practical options, they could have at least contracted for a distribution license which wouldn't need to be open source).
rs999gti 2y ago
> I think software and firmware should be free if critical functionality depends on an Internet-based service. Anything that requires the effort or labor of another person should not be free regardless of criticality. Get a private or public entity to pay the providing person or group.
- Spivak 2y ago
  That's fine, people deserve to be paid. Is it fine to be compelled to keep selling the service under the original terms as long as your customers still have your device? I mean we're talking about hardware that becomes trash the moment the servers stop working. I think there's a legitimate interest in keeping functional products out of landfills.
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  Free as in freedom
Zak 2y ago
Perhaps they should have the option of publishing any specifications, APIs, and keys necessary for a third party to build equivalent functionality rather than source code. This stuff usually isn't rocket science, but it's often locked behind some sort of DRM, or requires exponentially more time without simple docs.
thfuran 2y ago
>There are countless games that can't be played any more only because a company behind it has discontinued its DRM servers. I want those companies (and especially connected device manufacturers in similar positions) to be liable for damages. It's basically destruction of property.
- jandrese 2y ago
  Except software isn't property. You don't even own it. It's all some "limited license to execute the code on your own hardware", because the one thing software companies will never abide is the doctrine of first sale[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - thfuran 2y ago
    It's more like renting for an undisclosed period of time than buying, and perhaps labeling should be required to reflect this. I think the first sale doctrine needs holes plugged and the third party doctrine should probably be binned or at least heavily modified. We're well over a decade into an era that many of our laws just are not fit for. Of course, many of those legal deficiencies were bought and paid for, so I'm not holding my breath.

crazygringo 2y ago

I am sympathetic toward the idea. However: > a company should be required by law to provide their source code to a government agency that holds it in escrow The reality is that a lot of code can be licensed from third parties, and there's no moral principle by which it would be right to expose and open-source their code. So I'm really not sure how workable or useful this would actually be.

hoherd 2y ago
When the end of Spotify Car Thing was announced this is what I expected. I thought these perfectly good devices had been built on license encumbered libraries that would prohibit open sourcing the code, and that all those hardware devices would go to waste. Thankfully that was not the case, but most of the time it is. It's amazing how much licensing controls how software is used, and thus how much systems and software designers should consider the license of the libraries and frameworks they choose.
sowbug 2y ago
Wouldn't the third parties be subject to the requirement as well?
- thfuran 2y ago
  What if they're in a different jurisdiction?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    How does that apply when you're releasing the source code in the jurisdiction where the law requires it? If they sue you there, the law there says they lose. If you're also in the other jurisdiction your subsidiary there doesn't have to release it so they don't. This is like, what happens when a work is in the public domain in one jurisdiction but not another? The answer is different things happen in different places. Also, obviously companies would then just not license software under terms that would cause legal trouble for them.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      >How does that apply when you're releasing the source code in the jurisdiction where the law requires it? That would depend on what exactly the requirement is and what exactly the third-party code is and is used for. Without the specifics, I'd say it seems plausible that the third party itself is not subject to the requirement but the firmware using the third-party code may be subject for both first- and third-party code.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        But then why is that a problem? The entity in the jurisdiction releases the code for the device they sell in the jurisdiction, whether they wrote it or licensed it, and doesn't license it under terms inconsistent with their legal obligation.
  - stonemetal12 2y ago
    Either they follow the law or it is illegal to sell in the covered jurisdiction. There are already US laws that work in that way. Consider DDT, if fruit was grown with DDT you can't sell it in the US. It doesn't matter that DDT is legal in the grower's country.
throwaway494932 2y ago
> The reality is that a lot of code can be licensed from third parties, and there's no moral principle by which it would be right to expose and open-source their code. This doesn't mean that they would have to expose somebody else's code, they would just have to use something else (or write their own)
Zak 2y ago
This objection only applies to past products. If the law in a big enough market required that sort of code escrow and eventual release, companies wouldn't build future products covered by that law on top of code they couldn't release.
bombcar 2y ago
You'd have to have some practical "ramp up" times, but anything that has been written can be written again. It could eventually result in the third-party libraries being fully replaced (good value) or them adapting so that they update their libraries yearly - sure you can get the 3 year old one open-source, but do you want to? id ran into this with the sound code for Doom, and Carmack regrets it (though I'm not sure they had many other practical options, they could have at least contracted for a distribution license which wouldn't need to be open source).

rs999gti 2y ago

> I think software and firmware should be free if critical functionality depends on an Internet-based service. Anything that requires the effort or labor of another person should not be free regardless of criticality. Get a private or public entity to pay the providing person or group.

Spivak 2y ago
That's fine, people deserve to be paid. Is it fine to be compelled to keep selling the service under the original terms as long as your customers still have your device? I mean we're talking about hardware that becomes trash the moment the servers stop working. I think there's a legitimate interest in keeping functional products out of landfills.
Almondsetat 2y ago
Free as in freedom

Zak 2y ago

Perhaps they should have the option of publishing any specifications, APIs, and keys necessary for a third party to build equivalent functionality rather than source code. This stuff usually isn't rocket science, but it's often locked behind some sort of DRM, or requires exponentially more time without simple docs.

thfuran 2y ago

>There are countless games that can't be played any more only because a company behind it has discontinued its DRM servers. I want those companies (and especially connected device manufacturers in similar positions) to be liable for damages. It's basically destruction of property.

jandrese 2y ago
Except software isn't property. You don't even own it. It's all some "limited license to execute the code on your own hardware", because the one thing software companies will never abide is the doctrine of first sale[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- thfuran 2y ago
  It's more like renting for an undisclosed period of time than buying, and perhaps labeling should be required to reflect this. I think the first sale doctrine needs holes plugged and the third party doctrine should probably be binned or at least heavily modified. We're well over a decade into an era that many of our laws just are not fit for. Of course, many of those legal deficiencies were bought and paid for, so I'm not holding my breath.