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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
