On 6/10/21 2:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote:Very Respectfully,
The report and its recommendations may provide a means
to pierce the veil of closed platforms, like closed-sourced firmware.
It seems unlikely to me that we will ever see a "Right to Repair" for
software, firmware or gateware.
So, why should laws protect the intellectual property of software companies but not the IP of hardware companies?
What supporters euphemistically call a "right to repair" is in reality an initiative against the right of companies to protect their intellectual property.
Why should any company take the risk of investment for new hardware developments
when they have to fear that every other company in the world will
get free access
to their blue prints?
The claim that hardware companies intentionally make it hard to
products is a conspiracy theory. In reality, a consumer product is
for production costs which implies cheap capacitors or cases that
are glued together.
Lots of consumers seem to forget that a product sold into the market
not only must
cover the material costs but also the costs of engineering,
support, customs, compliance tests and so on. And in the end, you
still want there
to be a small profit left which is what makes the whole business
model viable in
the first place.
If law initiatives also now want to take away the exclusive rights
of hardware designers
over their blueprints and hence the market advantage over
competitors that they took an
investment risk for, companies will lose the incentive to design and
Companies aren't charities so in the end they must protect their
investments and have to
make profits to survive.
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - firstname.lastname@example.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - email@example.com `-
GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Here's a more recent example: I've been trying to figure out how to
install a more modern Linux kernel on a PowerMac 6100. More than 20
years ago, Apple teamed up with the now-defunct OSF to use the Mach 3.0 microkernel along with Apple's customized version of a 2.0.33 Linux
kernel to bring Linux to Nubus PowerMacs. This worked until Apple gave
up on the project, and though there was a successful effort to bring a
few 2.4.x Linux kernels (without Mach) to Nubus PowerMacs, that too
died. The thing about Apple's involvement with MkLinux was that they
had no problem modifying Linux kernels, but they weren't willing to make their "MkLinux Booter" open source (or document how it worked), and
that's really what killed Linux (and NetBSD) for Nubus PowerMacs.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||8 (1 / 7)|