Cassandra is only carbon nowWe really, really need basic software freedoms, and we need them yesterday.
I'm not even talking open source. I get it, folks think that's nerd shit and glaze over. I'm talking "can you run software in devices you own, even when the manufacturer of said device doesn't want you to?"
Andres@xgranade Consumer protection is the non-nerdy way I'd phrase it.
@Andres4NY Fair, and that's definitely something that relates quite heavily to software freedoms, but I think the latter tends to involve issues that don't quite as neatly fall under consumer protection. That is, consumer protection still envisions the user as a consumer rather than an agent in their own right?
That said, DRM as an enabling took for eroding software freedoms can a thousand percent be regulated on a consumer protection basis, I agree.
@xgranade Basically I'd argue that right-to-repair and software freedoms should fall under the category of consumer protection. Consumer protection *should* envision the user as an agent in their own right, who bought a product and not only wants to be able to use it, but also share it, remix it, sell it, use it to earn a living, etc. That we currently focus narrowly on the "use it" part is a problem.
tipjip@xgranade
I actually wonder when this will finally become a legal case. Where I live, to complete the sale of a thing requires transfer of ownership. The case could be made that when the seller reserves the right to control what is done/installed on the device, this transfer is not fully completed.
I actually wonder when this will finally become a legal case. Where I live, to complete the sale of a thing requires transfer of ownership. The case could be made that when the seller reserves the right to control what is done/installed on the device, this transfer is not fully completed.