4 ms·

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 cor

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 15d 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 That makes no sense, either as a hypothetical or a historical reference.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.
- ndriscoll 14d ago
  It's literally not a statement of opinion. It's a factual statement about how computers work. And yeah people hack their appliances all the time. Car modders replace all sorts of things; I don't see why they wouldn't touch software (in fact I already gave an example of an obvious piece of control software to mod: locked down seat heaters). Airplanes have a unique regulatory environment where "consumer" protection is less relevant, but for the same reason it's not like copyright serves a purpose. I'm familiar with the law; I said we should change it. And no, when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. It is 100% mine. I can smash it with a hammer and no one has any recourse because they don't own it; I do. I can replace chips on the board if I'd like, or move chips onto another board. And I absolutely can install other software on it if I please.
  - otterley 14d ago
    > when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. You own the hardware portion of the computer. You do not own the software portion. Look, if you don't believe me (IAAL who studied this in detail), ask your own attorney. If they tell you different, give me their contact info. :-) > And I absolutely can install other software on it if I please. You might be able to do that, mechanically speaking, but the vendor is under no obligation to help you either install it or make it work (safely, or even at all).
    - ndriscoll 14d ago
      Yes, this is why I say we should abolish software copyright, and the vendor should have an obligation to provide their source code, and it should be illegal to use technological measures to try to stop you from making it work (e.g. firmware signature checks). Basically the Free Software definition should be made law. I wouldn't have had to say I support changing the law if it were already correct.

otterley 15d 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.

ndriscoll 14d ago
It's literally not a statement of opinion. It's a factual statement about how computers work. And yeah people hack their appliances all the time. Car modders replace all sorts of things; I don't see why they wouldn't touch software (in fact I already gave an example of an obvious piece of control software to mod: locked down seat heaters). Airplanes have a unique regulatory environment where "consumer" protection is less relevant, but for the same reason it's not like copyright serves a purpose. I'm familiar with the law; I said we should change it. And no, when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. It is 100% mine. I can smash it with a hammer and no one has any recourse because they don't own it; I do. I can replace chips on the board if I'd like, or move chips onto another board. And I absolutely can install other software on it if I please.
- otterley 14d ago
  > when I buy a computer, I own the computer, not a limited license to use it. You own the hardware portion of the computer. You do not own the software portion. Look, if you don't believe me (IAAL who studied this in detail), ask your own attorney. If they tell you different, give me their contact info. :-) > And I absolutely can install other software on it if I please. You might be able to do that, mechanically speaking, but the vendor is under no obligation to help you either install it or make it work (safely, or even at all).
  - ndriscoll 14d ago
    Yes, this is why I say we should abolish software copyright, and the vendor should have an obligation to provide their source code, and it should be illegal to use technological measures to try to stop you from making it work (e.g. firmware signature checks). Basically the Free Software definition should be made law. I wouldn't have had to say I support changing the law if it were already correct.