5 ms·

> 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 pra

> 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.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Just because a product is discontinued doesn't mean every component inside of it is also discontinued. You're assuming the code doesn't have to be released as long as there exists something using it that isn't discontinued, but it can be the other way. As soon as you discontinue something, everything in it has to be released. > Nor does it mean the restrictions on those are based in copyright. They may be restricted by other legal mechanisms other than copyright. The proposal is a consumer protection law that requires source code to be published when a product goes out of support. If the law requires it to be released, you release it or you're in violation of the law. > If you want to propose making closed source hardware or software illegal, just propose that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042
    - kube-system 2y ago
      > You're assuming the code doesn't have to be released as long as there exists something using it that isn't discontinued, but it can be the other way. As soon as you discontinue something, everything in it has to be released. No, I'm interpreting this the way you're suggesting. And I'm saying it's insane. If company A sells a component to company B, and uses it in their product, and company B stops supporting it or goes out of business, now it needs to be open sourced? Every vendor has customers that have gone out of business or discontinued a product, so this is effectively a ban of all B2B closed source hardware or software components. > If the law requires it to be released, you release it or you're in violation of the law. So, to comply with your proposed law, companies can no longer sign NDAs with their vendors. They can no longer license patented hardware or software. They can no longer create products which have components with source restricted by trade law or product regulatory law. They can no longer license any closed-source hardware or software from any vendor. Do you realize this is a ban on approximately all commercially available computers, and a ban on many types of radio devices, including cellphones? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 That's a lot more reasonable argument, although it is unprecedented and unfounded. Copyright doesn't require any other authors of other works to release any foundational sources, and it never has. Authors don't have to release drafts or outlines of their books. Musicians don't have to release the constituent tracks of their final recordings. Artists and photographers don't have to release their PSD files. Patent protection works this way, but copyright never has.

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.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Just because a product is discontinued doesn't mean every component inside of it is also discontinued. You're assuming the code doesn't have to be released as long as there exists something using it that isn't discontinued, but it can be the other way. As soon as you discontinue something, everything in it has to be released. > Nor does it mean the restrictions on those are based in copyright. They may be restricted by other legal mechanisms other than copyright. The proposal is a consumer protection law that requires source code to be published when a product goes out of support. If the law requires it to be released, you release it or you're in violation of the law. > If you want to propose making closed source hardware or software illegal, just propose that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > You're assuming the code doesn't have to be released as long as there exists something using it that isn't discontinued, but it can be the other way. As soon as you discontinue something, everything in it has to be released. No, I'm interpreting this the way you're suggesting. And I'm saying it's insane. If company A sells a component to company B, and uses it in their product, and company B stops supporting it or goes out of business, now it needs to be open sourced? Every vendor has customers that have gone out of business or discontinued a product, so this is effectively a ban of all B2B closed source hardware or software components. > If the law requires it to be released, you release it or you're in violation of the law. So, to comply with your proposed law, companies can no longer sign NDAs with their vendors. They can no longer license patented hardware or software. They can no longer create products which have components with source restricted by trade law or product regulatory law. They can no longer license any closed-source hardware or software from any vendor. Do you realize this is a ban on approximately all commercially available computers, and a ban on many types of radio devices, including cellphones? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443042 That's a lot more reasonable argument, although it is unprecedented and unfounded. Copyright doesn't require any other authors of other works to release any foundational sources, and it never has. Authors don't have to release drafts or outlines of their books. Musicians don't have to release the constituent tracks of their final recordings. Artists and photographers don't have to release their PSD files. Patent protection works this way, but copyright never has.