3 ms·
> But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops, you decide to check at boot time that the software hasn’t been modified. As argume
by atq2119 10mo ago
> But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops, you decide to check at boot time that the software hasn’t been modified.
As arguments go, this is a pretty weak one considering how obvious the solution is: Make the manufacturer not be liable for what happens when you operate the device with unauthorized software.
- jcalvinowens 10mo agoLawyers who make these decisions are so risk averse in my experience they'd still probably insist on it being nonmodifiable.
- atq2119 10mo agoSure, which is why right to repair laws are so important. I understand this discussion as being about how society should deal with it, not how you could try to make the argument internal to a company.
- jcalvinowens 10mo agoRight, I'm saying I don't think codifying limitations on liability in law will be effective, because it probably wouldn't be absolute enough to satisfy the lawyers. You need a law that actually says "the user must be free to modify the device".
- account42 10mo agoThey don't seem to be too risk averse about misusing free software though.
- barnas2 10mo agoManufacturers still may not go for it, due to the potential bad publicity. To go back to the toaster example, if some fancy open source software alternative has a critical issue and causes fires, the news will not report it with nuance. "SmartCo Toaster Fires on the Rise!" will be the headline, not "Niche Modding Community Sets Toasters On Fire, And The Manufacturer Had Nothing To Do With It".