2 ms·

> If you can find someone to write it, because these aren't a product that is generally available. Trade credit insurance etc. are generally available. The gen

> If you can find someone to write it, because these aren't a product that is generally available. Trade credit insurance etc. are generally available. The general concept is that you want to insure against your counterparty being unable to fulfill their obligations, which is exactly the concern here, and nothing stops you from requiring them to pay for that and then naming a trust as the beneficiary that would use the money to uphold their obligation to continue to support the device, if you really want to do that. > Nobody would do this, because funding a requirement that wouldn't ever be enforceable is akin to burning money. You can't penalize a company that doesn't exist. The money comes from the insurance that pays out because they defaulted. The insurance company still exists and is required to pay the claim. > It absolutely is, and it's why precisely zero phones (even 'open source' phones) have an open baseband. This doesn't make any sense. Can you cite the specific statute or regulation that requires this? What secret is even being protected here? Surely the method of operation for baseband modems is not classified information. > No. Regulations require companies to ensure they design their products to operate within regulatory requirements. The devices presumably do operate within regulatory requirements as manufactured. It's ridiculous to expect the manufacturer to prevent the customer from modifying the device. If someone modifies the device it's on them. How is the OEM supposed to stop someone from splicing a signal amplifier into the antenna or having a device from a different regulatory domain drop shipped or similar? > Leaks, by definition, are not intentional. Once the code is leaked, intentionally or otherwise, you're now intentionally selling a device with publicly available code. Why should the response to that be any different than selling a device for which the code was intentionally published to comply with the laws of another jurisdiction? > No, they really shouldn't. There are good reasons that mass market devices are designed not to interfere with other users of the spectrum. They would still be designed to do that. The difference is that you put the obligation for prosecuting users who modify devices to violate those regulations where it belongs, on law enforcement, instead of compromising security, freedom and transparency by trying to put it on device OEMs. > Are you suggesting that parties other than OEMs are subject to this law too??? Good lord -- do you want the corner gas station to hire engineers to ensure the microcontroller firmware on the phone chargers they sell is properly open sourced? Basically all other product regulatory law affects the company that makes the product, for good reason. What do you think currently happens if you go to Walmart and buy a product manufactured in China with faulty wiring and it starts a fire? Or a foreign-made wireless access point that exceeds FCC regulatory limits on transmit power out of the box? > The rights legally exist regardless, and the reason I used this example is because it is a very solid way to go after people who steal private works. It's basically a hack the courts used because there wasn't a more convenient existing law to go after people who do that but those people are unsympathetic. It's ancillary to the core purpose of copyright laws. > And there are other various durations which apply when the work is not published. Publishing is not a requirement. The other durations are longer (e.g. 120 years from creation vs. 95 years from publication), so for for the vast majority of works which are promptly published it's the publication date that causes expiration. The other date exists only to ensure that the work can't be withheld from the public domain indefinitely by not publishing it, which is back to the purpose of copyright being to enrich the public domain. > Yep, that's the clause that enumerated the power of the federal government to regulate those things. Which the federal government subsequently, as that clause granted them the power to do, regulated them as two entirely separate categories of intellectual property. The constitution itself implies that they're two different things, but the point is that they have the same ultimate purpose and denying the public the source code frustrates that purpose, so it's entirely reasonable to require it in exchange for the benefits of copyright protection.

kube-system 2y ago
> The general concept is that you want to insure against your counterparty being unable to fulfill their obligations, which is exactly the concern here So vendors are going to have to take insurance policies out on each of their customers? > The money comes from the insurance that pays out because they defaulted. The insurance company still exists and is required to pay the claim. Pay who? Money is not source code. Money can't hire people to work at a company that doesn't exist. > This doesn't make any sense. Can you cite the specific statute or regulation that requires this? 47 C.F.R. § 15.5, Prevention of Harmful Interference. Manufacturers must design devices in a way that reasonably prevent their users from operating the device outside of allowable criteria. And under 47 U.S.C. § 302a and 47 C.F.R. § 2.803, the devices will be tested to ensure that they can't be changed to operate outside of that criteria. If the software allows the testers to modify them to do so, they will fail testing. > What secret is even being protected here? Surely the method of operation for baseband modems is not classified information. Nothing. It has nothing to do with keeping secrets -- it is about preventing the user from changing the way it operates. > Once the code is leaked, intentionally or otherwise, you're now intentionally selling a device with publicly available code. Why should the response to that be any different than selling a device for which the code was intentionally published to comply with the laws of another jurisdiction? 1. Leaks are never part of design intent, there's no transitive property of intent. 2. Devices are certified and tested before they're released, so the timelines are unlikely to line up. 3. I'm not sure what the FCC would do if this did happen, I'm not sure it ever has, but would be interesting to know. I'd bet it would depend on the severity of the problem. > What do you think currently happens if you go to Walmart and buy a product manufactured in China with faulty wiring and it starts a fire? Or a foreign-made wireless access point that exceeds FCC regulatory limits on transmit power out of the box? They might be liable for a recall after the problem is identified, or liable if they knowingly sold products that weren't compliant -- but the actual product design regulations, and UL/ETL/FCC testing requirements all lie on the original manufacturer.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > So vendors are going to have to take insurance policies out on each of their customers? They don't have to, but they can in any case they want to do business with a company they fear is at significant risk of insolvency. > Pay who? Money is not source code. Money can't hire people to work at a company that doesn't exist. Money can pay the people who used to work at the company, or some entirely different people, to continue to support the hardware for a defined period of time even if the company fails to secure any new customers or revenue. Contracts or escrow ahead of time ensures that those people have access to what they need to do it. > 47 C.F.R. § 15.5, Prevention of Harmful Interference. Manufacturers must design devices in a way that reasonably prevent their users from operating the device outside of allowable criteria. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 It appears to say you're not allowed to operate a device that causes harmful interference. I don't see anything in it that says manufacturers are required to prevent the user from modifying the device. 47 U.S.C. § 302a is the generic grant of authority by Congress to the FCC to make this category of rules, not a specific rule. 47 CFR § 2.803 is a multi-part section but I don't see anything in it about manufacturers having an obligation to prevent modification, and it references subpart J which contains 47 CFR § 2.909 "Responsible Party" and seems to imply the opposite, i.e. that if an independent third party modifies the device they're taking the compliance burden onto themselves. What am I missing? > Devices are certified and tested before they're released, so the timelines are unlikely to line up. Wouldn't that imply the source code could be released by the manufacturer or someone else after the certification to the same effect? > I'm not sure what the FCC would do if this did happen, I'm not sure it ever has, but would be interesting to know. I'd bet it would depend on the severity of the problem. There have been WiFi chips with open source firmware, e.g. Atheros pre-Qualcomm. I'm not aware of any current ones but also not aware of any serious problems occurring when those chips were current. What is someone even supposed to do that they couldn't still do with hardware modifications or SDR anyway?

kube-system 2y ago

> The general concept is that you want to insure against your counterparty being unable to fulfill their obligations, which is exactly the concern here So vendors are going to have to take insurance policies out on each of their customers? > The money comes from the insurance that pays out because they defaulted. The insurance company still exists and is required to pay the claim. Pay who? Money is not source code. Money can't hire people to work at a company that doesn't exist. > This doesn't make any sense. Can you cite the specific statute or regulation that requires this? 47 C.F.R. § 15.5, Prevention of Harmful Interference. Manufacturers must design devices in a way that reasonably prevent their users from operating the device outside of allowable criteria. And under 47 U.S.C. § 302a and 47 C.F.R. § 2.803, the devices will be tested to ensure that they can't be changed to operate outside of that criteria. If the software allows the testers to modify them to do so, they will fail testing. > What secret is even being protected here? Surely the method of operation for baseband modems is not classified information. Nothing. It has nothing to do with keeping secrets -- it is about preventing the user from changing the way it operates. > Once the code is leaked, intentionally or otherwise, you're now intentionally selling a device with publicly available code. Why should the response to that be any different than selling a device for which the code was intentionally published to comply with the laws of another jurisdiction? 1. Leaks are never part of design intent, there's no transitive property of intent. 2. Devices are certified and tested before they're released, so the timelines are unlikely to line up. 3. I'm not sure what the FCC would do if this did happen, I'm not sure it ever has, but would be interesting to know. I'd bet it would depend on the severity of the problem. > What do you think currently happens if you go to Walmart and buy a product manufactured in China with faulty wiring and it starts a fire? Or a foreign-made wireless access point that exceeds FCC regulatory limits on transmit power out of the box? They might be liable for a recall after the problem is identified, or liable if they knowingly sold products that weren't compliant -- but the actual product design regulations, and UL/ETL/FCC testing requirements all lie on the original manufacturer.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> So vendors are going to have to take insurance policies out on each of their customers? They don't have to, but they can in any case they want to do business with a company they fear is at significant risk of insolvency. > Pay who? Money is not source code. Money can't hire people to work at a company that doesn't exist. Money can pay the people who used to work at the company, or some entirely different people, to continue to support the hardware for a defined period of time even if the company fails to secure any new customers or revenue. Contracts or escrow ahead of time ensures that those people have access to what they need to do it. > 47 C.F.R. § 15.5, Prevention of Harmful Interference. Manufacturers must design devices in a way that reasonably prevent their users from operating the device outside of allowable criteria. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.5 It appears to say you're not allowed to operate a device that causes harmful interference. I don't see anything in it that says manufacturers are required to prevent the user from modifying the device. 47 U.S.C. § 302a is the generic grant of authority by Congress to the FCC to make this category of rules, not a specific rule. 47 CFR § 2.803 is a multi-part section but I don't see anything in it about manufacturers having an obligation to prevent modification, and it references subpart J which contains 47 CFR § 2.909 "Responsible Party" and seems to imply the opposite, i.e. that if an independent third party modifies the device they're taking the compliance burden onto themselves. What am I missing? > Devices are certified and tested before they're released, so the timelines are unlikely to line up. Wouldn't that imply the source code could be released by the manufacturer or someone else after the certification to the same effect? > I'm not sure what the FCC would do if this did happen, I'm not sure it ever has, but would be interesting to know. I'd bet it would depend on the severity of the problem. There have been WiFi chips with open source firmware, e.g. Atheros pre-Qualcomm. I'm not aware of any current ones but also not aware of any serious problems occurring when those chips were current. What is someone even supposed to do that they couldn't still do with hardware modifications or SDR anyway?