Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] [semi-OT] "Right to Own" law



On 06/27/2012 03:40 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
> To require things to be documented, you have to specify WHAT 
> documents. Anything you don't specify won't be documented.
Well, like I said in the original post, it takes technical savvy to 
define this, however, most things are public public designs. Take 
android and PC markets, the computer is basically open. The hardware is 
basically a modification of a published reference. The Apple is 
basically documented as well. What *isn't* documented are the very facts 
that you need to use your property how you want too. Further more, there 
is *no* option for you to do so.

>
> Have you ever done a pro hardware design?
Yes.
>  The documentation is different at every single place I have worked. 
>  The systems are often proprietary file output.  Paper schematics? 
>  I've worked on designs with 300 pages of 11x17 schematics.
True, but this is one of those exceptions. A surface mount assembly like 
a motherboard which is essentially non-serviceable could be considered a 
"component." Even so, a PDF is good enough. However, if it is a general 
purpose computer, the ability to alter its functionality should be 
documented.

>
> **
> **Drew Van Zandt**
> **Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
> Cam # US2010035593 (**M:**Liam Hopkins **R:**Bastian Rotgeld)
> ******Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST ****
> **
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Mark Woodward <markw at mohawksoft.com 
> <mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 06/27/2012 09:06 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
>>     Increases the barrier to entry in business.
>     I took some to think about this response, and the more I think
>     about it, the more I see it as FUD. This is the type of answer
>     corporations that want to extend their control over our property
>     give. Seeing as this is a discussion, I get to ask: how? It seems
>     to me, *MORE* effort needs to be made to lock down these devices
>     than it does to open them up.
>
>>
>>     That's bad for small businesses, matters less for large ones.
>
>     Again, the words "bad" "small business" but no facts. No argument.
>     Just FUD.
>
>     Maybe this is what discourse is in 21st century USA, but it is
>     still an empty non-argument.
>
>>
>>     **
>>     **Drew Van Zandt**
>>     **Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
>>     Cam # US2010035593 (**M:**Liam Hopkins **R:**Bastian Rotgeld)
>>     ******Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST ****
>>     **
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Mark Woodward
>>     <markw at mohawksoft.com <mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         We've heard the ads on the radio for and against the "Right
>>         to Repair" law. This is a law that is intended to require
>>         automobile manufacturers to publish the technical
>>         specifications and the codes that the computers in your car
>>         produce for troubleshooting and repair.
>>
>>         I was thinking, what about a "Right to Own" law, that
>>         requires that *all* electronics be documented, all "general
>>         purpose" computers i.e. not embedded like a microwave, but
>>         everything from video games to iphones, tablets and computers
>>         be "user serviceable." No locking out a user from doing what
>>         ever they want with stuff they own.
>>
>>         Writing this law would be very tricky because you need a lot
>>         of legal intuition about the sort of attacks that will come
>>         at it from the likes of Apple and Microsoft, but also a lot
>>         of technical savvy to carefully define what is "general
>>         purpose" and what is "dedicated" and what the actual limits
>>         are. We want to protect innovation, but not at the expense of
>>         civil rights of ownership. For instance, we don't need to see
>>         the source code to Windows 8, be we damn well should be able
>>         to boot Linux or FreeBSD or whatever. We should be able to
>>         run what ever program we want on an iPhone or Android. These
>>         devices are our property, we paid for them, we are legally
>>         responsible for what is on them, we should have the ability
>>         to control them.
>>
>>         When I was a kid, almost *all* devices, from washing machines
>>         to televisions, had a schematic inside the case. CP/M came
>>         with the source code. We have lost a lot of freedom to the
>>         corporations locking up our property. How much crap that
>>         would have otherwise been semi useful have we had to throw away?
>>
>>         This is clearly a case where the invisible hand of capitalism
>>         will not help and an obvious case where regulation must.
>>         Agree? Disagree? it would be hard to find a politician who
>>         would even back such a bill, but maybe we can get a
>>         referendum on the ballot.
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Discuss mailing list
>>         Discuss at blu.org <mailto:Discuss at blu.org>
>>         http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>





BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org