3 ms·

And yet we have proof right in front of us that e.g. Apple will not port their GPU drivers to Linux, and people had to reverse engineer it, so clearly the evide

And yet we have proof right in front of us that e.g. Apple will not port their GPU drivers to Linux, and people had to reverse engineer it, so clearly the evidence says it does not create that incentive. In fact, copyright law for software is quite frequently used to manipulate and control appliance owners or end-users, even when the software itself is not really "the point" of the thing (e.g. putting ads and spyware in cars or locking out the ability of the owner to use their heated seats).

otterley 16d ago
> And yet we have proof right in front of us that e.g. Apple will not port their GPU drivers to Linux, and people had to reverse engineer it, so clearly the evidence says it does not create that incentive On the contrary, Apple engineers--paid professionals--wrote the driver to make MacOS work with the integrated GPU. I don't know why you think not writing a driver for Linux is proof of anything, other than that Apple does not care one whit about Linux. They have no interest in that. They build integrated computer systems (hardware + software); to build them for Linux is, to them, an utter waste of resources. > copyright law for software is quite frequently used to manipulate and control appliance owners or end-users, even when the software itself is not really "the point" of the thing That's right. Builders of things get control over what they build. That control is designed to maximize profit, which is a strong motivator for building novel and useful things. If you don't like what they're building, buy something else, or build something better! That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
- ndriscoll 16d ago
  Okay, but nobody can pay a random software engineer to go take the Apple driver's code and use it to make a working Linux driver that they can use on the hardware they purchased. So Apple's monopoly on their source code is not incentivizing any creation (they had to write it anyway to make the hardware useful), and is in fact disincentivizing it (now if someone wants e.g. a Linux or Windows driver, they need to undertake the previously monumental task of also reverse engineering the hardware, which is much more difficult than the original software creation). And product tying (requiring that if you want to buy Apple's hardware you must also use their software) is an anti-competitive practice that harms society, which is why I oppose it. The world is a better place when you can plug your Dell monitor into your Apple computer and it just works. It's also a better place when you can buy your operating system from Canonical if you'd like to run on your Apple computer. It means we all have more choice. Even if Apple doesn't want to have any part in making that work, we should say they have to release the necessary information to let you pay someone else to do it if you'd like, or at least let people re-use whatever they do get from Apple to make it work (e.g. look at what Apple's binary code does). As I said, it's a basic consumer protection requirement for the 21st century where everything has software now. Society gains literally nothing from letting them have a monopoly on software necessary for their hardware to run, so why give it to them?
  - otterley 16d ago
    > The world is a better place when you can plug your Dell monitor into your Apple computer and it just works. It's also a better place when you can buy your operating system from Canonical if you'd like to run on your Apple computer. It means we all have more choice. The thing is, you're suggesting imposing that choice on the unwilling. What if I, as a creator, don't want to see the software I put my blood, sweat, and tears into running on inferior (or less capable) hardware, or vice versa? Whether that is "better" for the world isn't obvious to me. > Society gains literally nothing from letting them have a monopoly on software necessary for their hardware to run, so why give it to them? I think it comes down to whether you believe hardware and software are always severable things, or whether you believe they comprise an integrated product. If you think like a hacker, they are the former. If you think like a product person, they are the latter. Woz was a hacker. Jobs was a product guy.
    - ndriscoll 16d ago
      What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? Or if I, the owner of AT&T, don't want inferior phones on my network? Too bad. The correct course of action to take with companies that try that is to dissolve them. Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. You can always sell the product you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to control how the owner uses it. If they want to install Linux on it, that's their prerogative. If they want to shoot it out of a cannon or detonate it with an M-80, also their prerogative. If someone wants to sell an emulator for your hardware that runs your software, also fine (and explicitly ruled legal).
      - otterley 16d ago
        > What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? That makes no sense, either as a hypothetical or a historical reference. > Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. That's a fact you made up that sounds "truthy". It's an opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make up your own facts. And yeah, it’s up for debate. You know how? Because people have been debating this for decades. Think about all the gazillion pieces of hardware out there that have dedicated control software that works closely in tandem with the hardware. Practically nobody is clamoring for the absolute freedom to replace the hardware in the stability control systems for for their vehicles or the autopilot systems in airplanes. > You can always sell the product you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to control how the owner uses it. You must be unfamiliar with this thing called "the law." You don't "own" the software component of an object when it's purchased. What you do "own" is a limited transferable license to use it, which conveys with the physical object. Same with all forms of physical prerecorded media. Perhaps you are arguing for how something should be. And that's fine, but that's different from what is.

otterley 16d ago

> And yet we have proof right in front of us that e.g. Apple will not port their GPU drivers to Linux, and people had to reverse engineer it, so clearly the evidence says it does not create that incentive On the contrary, Apple engineers--paid professionals--wrote the driver to make MacOS work with the integrated GPU. I don't know why you think not writing a driver for Linux is proof of anything, other than that Apple does not care one whit about Linux. They have no interest in that. They build integrated computer systems (hardware + software); to build them for Linux is, to them, an utter waste of resources. > copyright law for software is quite frequently used to manipulate and control appliance owners or end-users, even when the software itself is not really "the point" of the thing That's right. Builders of things get control over what they build. That control is designed to maximize profit, which is a strong motivator for building novel and useful things. If you don't like what they're building, buy something else, or build something better! That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

ndriscoll 16d ago
Okay, but nobody can pay a random software engineer to go take the Apple driver's code and use it to make a working Linux driver that they can use on the hardware they purchased. So Apple's monopoly on their source code is not incentivizing any creation (they had to write it anyway to make the hardware useful), and is in fact disincentivizing it (now if someone wants e.g. a Linux or Windows driver, they need to undertake the previously monumental task of also reverse engineering the hardware, which is much more difficult than the original software creation). And product tying (requiring that if you want to buy Apple's hardware you must also use their software) is an anti-competitive practice that harms society, which is why I oppose it. The world is a better place when you can plug your Dell monitor into your Apple computer and it just works. It's also a better place when you can buy your operating system from Canonical if you'd like to run on your Apple computer. It means we all have more choice. Even if Apple doesn't want to have any part in making that work, we should say they have to release the necessary information to let you pay someone else to do it if you'd like, or at least let people re-use whatever they do get from Apple to make it work (e.g. look at what Apple's binary code does). As I said, it's a basic consumer protection requirement for the 21st century where everything has software now. Society gains literally nothing from letting them have a monopoly on software necessary for their hardware to run, so why give it to them?
- otterley 16d ago
  > The world is a better place when you can plug your Dell monitor into your Apple computer and it just works. It's also a better place when you can buy your operating system from Canonical if you'd like to run on your Apple computer. It means we all have more choice. The thing is, you're suggesting imposing that choice on the unwilling. What if I, as a creator, don't want to see the software I put my blood, sweat, and tears into running on inferior (or less capable) hardware, or vice versa? Whether that is "better" for the world isn't obvious to me. > Society gains literally nothing from letting them have a monopoly on software necessary for their hardware to run, so why give it to them? I think it comes down to whether you believe hardware and software are always severable things, or whether you believe they comprise an integrated product. If you think like a hacker, they are the former. If you think like a product person, they are the latter. Woz was a hacker. Jobs was a product guy.
  - ndriscoll 16d ago
    What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? Or if I, the owner of AT&T, don't want inferior phones on my network? Too bad. The correct course of action to take with companies that try that is to dissolve them. Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. You can always sell the product you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to control how the owner uses it. If they want to install Linux on it, that's their prerogative. If they want to shoot it out of a cannon or detonate it with an M-80, also their prerogative. If someone wants to sell an emulator for your hardware that runs your software, also fine (and explicitly ruled legal).
    - otterley 16d ago
      > What if I, the owner of Standard Oil, don't want my oil in inferior cars? That makes no sense, either as a hypothetical or a historical reference. > Programmable hardware and software are obviously always severable. This is not up for debate, but is a basic fact. That's a fact you made up that sounds "truthy". It's an opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make up your own facts. And yeah, it’s up for debate. You know how? Because people have been debating this for decades. Think about all the gazillion pieces of hardware out there that have dedicated control software that works closely in tandem with the hardware. Practically nobody is clamoring for the absolute freedom to replace the hardware in the stability control systems for for their vehicles or the autopilot systems in airplanes. > You can always sell the product you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to control how the owner uses it. You must be unfamiliar with this thing called "the law." You don't "own" the software component of an object when it's purchased. What you do "own" is a limited transferable license to use it, which conveys with the physical object. Same with all forms of physical prerecorded media. Perhaps you are arguing for how something should be. And that's fine, but that's different from what is.