4 ms·

So you make a laptop, sell it, discontinue it, now Microsoft is legally required to open source Windows 12. That makes sense, right?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
They have to open source the code which is so old that the laptop it originally came with is discontinued. Yes, that makes sense. Things shouldn't be discontinued four hours after they're released and if you want to do that there can be a cost to it.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Maybe there should be a cost, but you've picked an insane cost to ascribe here. If some fly-by-night PC integrator sells a PC today, then goes out of business tomorrow, no, Microsoft absolutely shouldn't be required to open source their operating system. Many thousands of businesses close their doors every day, and when they do, punishing their vendor is silly, illogical, and wrong.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > If some fly-by-night PC integrator sells a PC today, then goes out of business tomorrow, no, Microsoft absolutely shouldn't be required to open source their operating system. There is another reasonable solution for Microsoft here. The premise is that the device either has to be supported or open sourced (and therefore supportable by the community). If the OEM is gone the firmware has to be open sourced because the company is no longer supporting it. But my point earlier was that you shouldn't get out of having to release the source for something just because that component is still supported on other devices. It has to be still supported on this device. But as long as a current version of Windows is still supported on the device by Microsoft, that implies that once the firmware source is released the entire device is still supported. So then all Microsoft would have to do is make sure they're licensing Windows to run on hardware they're willing to have Windows continue to support for as long as they want to keep the source code unpublished. Which is already their longstanding practice, Windows 11 TPM kerfuffle notwithstanding. Currently supported versions of Windows support hardware going back more than 20 years.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      > There is another reasonable solution for Microsoft here. The premise is that the device either has to be supported or open sourced (and therefore supportable by the community). If the OEM is gone the firmware has to be open sourced because the company is no longer supporting it. Alright, lets say we do that. And let's say it's my PC OEM, and I'm completing my chapter 7 filings today, and I am going to ignore your law to open source my firmware. What are you going to do about it?
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        Why would it be different than ignoring any other law? The plaintiffs get an injunction and if the defendants ignore it they're held in contempt or get whatever criminal penalties are imposed for violating the law. If the concern is that the source code is going to be lost in dying companies, some people have suggested escrow requirements, e.g. you file the source code with the copyright office on the release date, not to be published until you discontinue support. You might conceivably file gibberish and not be discovered until the publication date but then we're back to personal liability for willful criminal acts, e.g. falsifying official documents.
        kube-system 2y ago
        As a product regulatory issue, you're right, it probably wouldn't be any different than other product regulatory law. They're mainly civil, (especially in terms of product warranty). In a chapter 7 case, civil penalties typically don't even get priority to creditors. But who cares?! The company is gone anyway. > If the concern is that the source code is going to be lost in dying companies, some people have suggested escrow requirements, e.g. you file the source code with the copyright office on the release date, not to be published until you discontinue support. You might conceivably file gibberish and not be discovered until the publication date but then we're back to personal liability for willful criminal acts, e.g. falsifying official documents. Even if you do convince Congress to approve the new billion dollar data center they'll need, I'm not sure the entire world really wants to put this in their build pipeline. It's an interesting thought experiment. I don't really think the public cares about source code as much as you do. And really, if they did, this wouldn't be a discussion.
- numpad0 2y ago
  You can't start production before work on the product dis-continues. A lot of e-waste gadgets are therefore effectively discontinued before the launch day. They don't ramp up and down like cars, they source parts and make few batches and move on, like how you make cookies. IMO the ideal end state to this problem cannot happen before massive debloating and standardization of software and hardware. It's just not realistic when anyone's writing C-like code on a sandbox atop dozen layers of C-like environments.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The end date isn't when you stop manufacturing the product, it's when you stop supporting it, e.g. when it has a known security vulnerability and you've gone an unreasonable length of time without releasing a patch.
    - numpad0 2y ago
      The original developer team, source codes, and build instructions would all be gone by then. Otherwise you should be able to issue a patch. I suppose you can codify code archives and code release enforcement framework in penal codes, like use of components with non-escrowed firmware code or losing access to code felony crimes with long sentences, but that's horrible.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The source code gets released at the point when you're discontinuing support. At that point you still have it, and the team, you're just not planning to continue supporting it tomorrow, so you release it now. If tomorrow comes and for the next vulnerability you can neither patch it nor release the code because you don't have it anymore, now you're in trouble, because you have an obligation to do one or the other. But whose fault is that? You had it a month ago and were supposed to release it before you delete it. Imposing penalties for that kind of pointlessly destructive behavior is hardly unreasonable.
        2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

They have to open source the code which is so old that the laptop it originally came with is discontinued. Yes, that makes sense. Things shouldn't be discontinued four hours after they're released and if you want to do that there can be a cost to it.

kube-system 2y ago
Maybe there should be a cost, but you've picked an insane cost to ascribe here. If some fly-by-night PC integrator sells a PC today, then goes out of business tomorrow, no, Microsoft absolutely shouldn't be required to open source their operating system. Many thousands of businesses close their doors every day, and when they do, punishing their vendor is silly, illogical, and wrong.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > If some fly-by-night PC integrator sells a PC today, then goes out of business tomorrow, no, Microsoft absolutely shouldn't be required to open source their operating system. There is another reasonable solution for Microsoft here. The premise is that the device either has to be supported or open sourced (and therefore supportable by the community). If the OEM is gone the firmware has to be open sourced because the company is no longer supporting it. But my point earlier was that you shouldn't get out of having to release the source for something just because that component is still supported on other devices. It has to be still supported on this device. But as long as a current version of Windows is still supported on the device by Microsoft, that implies that once the firmware source is released the entire device is still supported. So then all Microsoft would have to do is make sure they're licensing Windows to run on hardware they're willing to have Windows continue to support for as long as they want to keep the source code unpublished. Which is already their longstanding practice, Windows 11 TPM kerfuffle notwithstanding. Currently supported versions of Windows support hardware going back more than 20 years.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > There is another reasonable solution for Microsoft here. The premise is that the device either has to be supported or open sourced (and therefore supportable by the community). If the OEM is gone the firmware has to be open sourced because the company is no longer supporting it. Alright, lets say we do that. And let's say it's my PC OEM, and I'm completing my chapter 7 filings today, and I am going to ignore your law to open source my firmware. What are you going to do about it?
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      Why would it be different than ignoring any other law? The plaintiffs get an injunction and if the defendants ignore it they're held in contempt or get whatever criminal penalties are imposed for violating the law. If the concern is that the source code is going to be lost in dying companies, some people have suggested escrow requirements, e.g. you file the source code with the copyright office on the release date, not to be published until you discontinue support. You might conceivably file gibberish and not be discovered until the publication date but then we're back to personal liability for willful criminal acts, e.g. falsifying official documents.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        As a product regulatory issue, you're right, it probably wouldn't be any different than other product regulatory law. They're mainly civil, (especially in terms of product warranty). In a chapter 7 case, civil penalties typically don't even get priority to creditors. But who cares?! The company is gone anyway. > If the concern is that the source code is going to be lost in dying companies, some people have suggested escrow requirements, e.g. you file the source code with the copyright office on the release date, not to be published until you discontinue support. You might conceivably file gibberish and not be discovered until the publication date but then we're back to personal liability for willful criminal acts, e.g. falsifying official documents. Even if you do convince Congress to approve the new billion dollar data center they'll need, I'm not sure the entire world really wants to put this in their build pipeline. It's an interesting thought experiment. I don't really think the public cares about source code as much as you do. And really, if they did, this wouldn't be a discussion.
numpad0 2y ago
You can't start production before work on the product dis-continues. A lot of e-waste gadgets are therefore effectively discontinued before the launch day. They don't ramp up and down like cars, they source parts and make few batches and move on, like how you make cookies. IMO the ideal end state to this problem cannot happen before massive debloating and standardization of software and hardware. It's just not realistic when anyone's writing C-like code on a sandbox atop dozen layers of C-like environments.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The end date isn't when you stop manufacturing the product, it's when you stop supporting it, e.g. when it has a known security vulnerability and you've gone an unreasonable length of time without releasing a patch.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    The original developer team, source codes, and build instructions would all be gone by then. Otherwise you should be able to issue a patch. I suppose you can codify code archives and code release enforcement framework in penal codes, like use of components with non-escrowed firmware code or losing access to code felony crimes with long sentences, but that's horrible.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The source code gets released at the point when you're discontinuing support. At that point you still have it, and the team, you're just not planning to continue supporting it tomorrow, so you release it now. If tomorrow comes and for the next vulnerability you can neither patch it nor release the code because you don't have it anymore, now you're in trouble, because you have an obligation to do one or the other. But whose fault is that? You had it a month ago and were supposed to release it before you delete it. Imposing penalties for that kind of pointlessly destructive behavior is hardly unreasonable.
      - 2y ago