Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 359 posts

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#331

Post by bigtimeidiot »

RealityVoid wrote: post #278
bigtimeidiot wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your comparison to Tesla doesn't get better just by repeating it a few times Your hand-waving also does precisely zero. > If your Tesla breaks down you wont have any problem to get a comparable replacement car What does this have to do with anything? I want to work on something I bought; isn't that what we're arguing about? The availability of a replacement is a straw man. Why are you apologizing for other companie…

While I think you have a valid point about Tesla's availability, this is a "Tu Coque". I mean, regardless if Tesla does/does not do it, this is considered bad and bringing Tesla in the discussion does not change nor challenge the validity of this view, only, maybe, reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience.

>reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience.

Precisely my point in bringing it up. Someone, who apparently worked at John Deere, offers an opposing view and some clown shouts him down like a bully. Why should anyone listen to the arguments of hypocrites?

If you're against this sort of thing, you're against it.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#332

Post by RealityVoid »

bigtimeidiot wrote: post #331
RealityVoid wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think you have a valid point about Tesla's availability, this is a "Tu Coque". I mean, regardless if Tesla does/does not do it, this is considered bad and bringing Tesla in the discussion does not change nor challenge the validity of this view, only, maybe, reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience.

> reveal a little hypocrisy or favoritism in the audience. Precisely my point in bringing it up. Someone, who apparently worked at John Deere, offers an opposing view and some clown shouts him down like a bully. Why should anyone listen to the arguments of hypocrites? If you're against this sort of thing, you're against it.

> Why should anyone listen to the arguments of hypocrites?

Because even though they might be hypocrites the may offer good arguments. And while I understand the point of the JD employee myself (I also work writing software for vehicles) and I think he speaks honestly, I think that goods should be easy to fix and all the means fo this should be at the disposal of whoever needs it. Reconciling safety and the need for open software (because this is what is basically boils down to), right to repair and right to modify is a real issue. One that should not be invalidated necessarily by personal traits of a subset of supporters of either side.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#333

Post by jdietrich »

lobotryas wrote: post #129
rando832 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software correctly. > But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea. Joe Farmer may not know, but Joe farmer has "the internet", and ability to pay an independent software engineer. And people would absolutely find and fix bugs that john deer is missing. Honestly…

What happens if this independent fix results in a death? Do you really think JD will escape liability?

Independent mechanics have been repairing machinery for as long as machinery has existed. This is not an exotic legal problem.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#334

Post by eaceaser »

bartl wrote: post #237
eaceaser wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about what you just said for a second. "endemic" deaths of innocent people are the litmus test for whether software should be locked down? How is that in any way acceptable?

Traffic accidents happen. According to your reasoning, we should forbid people from owning and driving a car.

No, that is not my reasoning. I'm not talking at all about people operating or using devices that carry inherent danger to themselves or others. I'm specifically responding to the parent's argument about what counts as an acceptable threshold at which it becomes okay to compromise an owner's ability to modify these machines. The parent said that its only acceptable AFTER some nontrivial number of deaths, presumably of people in addition to the owner of the machine.

A related question I want to ask is: what is inherent about software that makes it not okay to have restrictions on modifications where lives other than the owner's may be at stake? I see other comments here that say things like "oh these machines should have mechanical limiters etc. that prevent them from being dangerous." But isn't that essentially the same thing, just implemented in hardware and not software?

I'd like to note that I'm not saying that John Deere is in the right here. I just feel that the argument in the parent comment is, for lack of a better word, inhumane.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#335

Post by Cyph0n »

csydas wrote: post #82
Cyph0n wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entirely on those patents (as I understand), would cheap 3D printers exist if the 1980s tech was never developed? I think these are the questions you should be thinking about when arguing against IP protection laws. Edit : One thing you failed to mention is that the…

Well you don't even need to look just at commercially available products - just look at the FOSS landscape for what gets produced when there is no financial incentive or IP law to protect the material - certainly we would be in a much different place technology wise if we didn't have FOSS as the backbone for a grand majority of technology that exist on the market today, and all of that FOSS was created without the fi…

I'm not talking about software specifically. In general, I support IP protection for industries where significant up-front investment is required for an innovation to come to fruition.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#336

Post by arkis22 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #157
arkis22 wrote: post #114

Everybody likes to feel taken advantage of. If I was a business owner or engineer that built systems this complex and you asked me to not lock it down, I'd call you freaking crazy. These are very expensive and complex machines, and you want my competition or some farmer who has no idea what he's doing to access and modify it? No thank you. Google keeps proprietary code. And that's for auto complete...

You address two different issues here competition and users. In the case of users you have no right after sale to feel a right to control how your users make use of your product. Just because software and contracts give you two venues to potentially do so doesn't mean it would be rational to allow you to. The world is 99.99% users. On the second point, competition has always quite legally taken apart the competitors…

No, In this case I have complete right to control how my users make use of my product because we agreed to it. It might not be rational because I might lose to an open competitor, but that's a completely different subject.

There's trade secrets at every company in existence that they don't share with their competition. They can't patent them, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve protection. Companies exist because they don't give up how they work to their competition...

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#337

Post by nickpsecurity »

icebraining wrote: post #243
nickpsecurity wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tangent but I'm all for calling out hipocracy. Author should've used Creative Commons or public domain.

It's not hypocrisy. Defending an overall elimination of IP is not the same as supporting individual self-abnegation. Self-sacrifice that doesn't lead to the desired goal is just masochism.

That wouldn't apply here since the goal was to spread an idea but that copyright made spreading it illegal without a license. Modifying to Creative Commons aids the goal plus is cconsistent with stated principles. So, it's the best move.

Fortunately, the author agrees and intends to change the license.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#338

Post by nickpsecurity »

Scea91 wrote: post #222
nickpsecurity wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great point. I'll add that even big companies and government that push for patents use tons of FOSS software because it's better for them. Says a lot, eh? ;)

As long as they are not violating the licenses I see no problem with that.

It depends on your moral system. Lets say it's Mirosoft pushing a server OS, Windows, saying it's better than UNIX's in every way. Definately worth the money. Then we find their Hotmail service runs on FreeBSD for better reliability & performance. I'd say what they tell customers about Windows Server was fraudulent in that situation and they need to get off FreeBSD if they really believe what they preach.

Something along these lines for companies pushing proprietary software and patent suits as good for innovation/productivity while using non-patented FOSS for own innovative or productive projects. It's dishonest. Although, I recall the Hotmail incident actually happening and they had to switch over lol. Same when people found out Microsoft ran on one AS/400.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#339

Post by burfog »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #258
swampthinker wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an opportunity...

I co-founded a company in this space a few years ago. We ultimately pivoted out of the space because for all of the user buy-in that we got, the legal encumbrances were way too high to be able to successfully operate without raising a lot of money just to pay lawyers. If we'd decided to go the VC route instead of bootstrapping we might have been able to make a go of it, but raising VC money for a startup in the midwe…

Couldn't you make a full electronics replacement kit? It's a bit more involved, but DMCA and other DRM issues just go away. All the original electronics just get removed, to be boxed up and maybe discarded.

You run your own software on your own computer with your own sensors.

Re: Farmers look for ways to circumvent tractor software locks

#340

Post by burfog »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #265
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #26

I think we'd all be better off if basically everything was open source, by way of eliminating intellectual property protections provided by governments. As an alternate solution, those of us with engineering skills can work to create an open source economy with open source factories, computers, and products. This would never be a problem nor would it be likely to happen if genuinely competitive options existed for fa…

If the software was open source, it would be modified and tuned to maximize power output, and would belch huge plumes of particulates, CO, and NOx. How do you balance openness against the public good of controlling this pollution? These are, perhaps, the primary reasons that engine control software is so complicated these days, on diesels and gas engines.

Pumping "huge plumes of particulates, CO, and NOx" into the soil would actually be good for farming. It fertilizes the soil and kills some of the bugs.
Post reply on HN