New York Senate passes Right to Repair bill

Post by unnouinceput » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

xroche wrote: post #28

If I loosely quote Louis Rossmann, one of the issue of right to repair is that more and more companies (Apple leading the trend) are using slightly modified chips from manufacturers, and them make then sign contracts that prevent any part selling to anyone. So technically even you can replace those chips, you can't buy them. And next Apple if putting serial numbers to prevent that even if you get the part, you will h…

Post by wiseleo » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 12:47 AM UTC

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #61

reflectiv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years is a bit much IMO...5-10 tho, that sounds at least reasonable.

I’m open to considering the nuance here. For a washing machine or refrigerator, I’d say twenty years is the minimum. For a phone or computer? I’d say at the very least five, but preferably ten years from the last sale of a new, used, or refurbished device sold by them or their authorized resellers. Require security updates for at least twice as long, or when the manufacturer can prove all devices are out of use.

Post by joshspankit » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #164

Teknoman117 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you. Modify a dishwasher and now it fills your kitchen with soap bubbles? Modify a CPAP machine and get killed by it? Not the manufacturer's fault. The US is too litigation happy as it is...

> I think we should just have some pretty clear literature that if you modify a device, the manufacturer is not responsible for any injuries it might cause you. That's not nearly nuanced enough. Manufacturers should still be responsible unless they can prove you caused the failure. We currently require this standard for something as simple warranty coverage, we ought to require it for something as severe as death .

Post by a1369209993 » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 3:43 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #151

myfavoritedog wrote: post #52

4. Excludes motor vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, or motor vehicle dealers and medical devices or a digital electronic product or embedded software found in medical settings. For all the bravado about standing up to powerful interests, this shows you who the most powerful interests are in that space.

Restrictions on medical devices are very reasonable though. They aren't something people can freely hack on. Errors can cause decisions to be made based on incorrect information, expose people to radioactivity... Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device.

Post by a1369209993 » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #198

a1369209993 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the GPLv3 makes an exception for this class of device. Citation very fucking needed, because exceptions for specific fields of work directly contradict the underlying principles of the GPL, and indeed [0] contains no occurence of the word "medical". 0: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

> A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. The anti-tivoization text in the license applies to these User Products. Medical devices are not included in the definition.