I’d be a fan of a law that companies who drop support of their product would have to release code that lets 3rd parties or users themselves offer alternative support. If you want to fully abandon a product opensource it. If you’re a big company that doesn’t want to do that release a feature for users to self host before you cut ties. I know it’s not a simple thing to do in the current world but if laws mandated it then tech would have no choice but to adapt.
Effective [some future date], in order to sell any device connected to the Internet (or Bluetooth, or whatever), you must register your entire codebase and all internal documentation with the FTC, and keep it updated, along with any signing keys to lock bootloaders. The day you abandon support, if you haven’t provided everything required for end users to take complete control of their device, your code base and any other IP enters the public domain, and the FTC uses their discretion on release of keys.
It would take new laws, and you’d have to be careful with language and structure to prevent abuse of “third party” code and abuse of corporate structure to try to prevent old devices from being usable, but you could do it.
This sounds like a security nightmare though. A central repository of all code and keys is a gold mine for exploitation. Don’t get me wrong, I would really want this to work, but if it was compromised it could he catastrophic.
I do think there should be regulations in place that are clearly and easily enforceable by the FTC though. I’d love to see companies be hit with fines and/or compulsory refunds if they stop supporting devices and don’t provide some path forward for customers to keep using the device. That doesn’t solve for startups that go out of business, but it would at least cover the tech giants who are doing this garbage.
This is a commendable goal; though it would still rely on good faith that a lot of these companies won’t have.
They’d rather screw the users anyway, sell the IP and let it rot within the maws of some holding company.
We’ll need some clauses that the tech cannot go inactive as it trades hands as well.
Further, some teeth will be needed toward feature deactivation, as there’s nothing stopping a company from yanking features and packaging it up as efficiencies made or product evolution.
Just because a product went defunct does not mean the entire code base is obsolete to the company.
Suppose I release software that makes a profit for a while, then falls off and starts costing me money, obviously time to retire that thing. However, a ton of code in that original product was a stepping stone for newer projects. I now have two choices.
A) Drop support and give world+dog my code, giving everyone a look into my existing products.
B) Keep losing money on the old project and make up for it by overcharging for my latest work.
I’d be a fan of a law that companies who drop support of their product would have to release code that lets 3rd parties or users themselves offer alternative support. If you want to fully abandon a product opensource it. If you’re a big company that doesn’t want to do that release a feature for users to self host before you cut ties. I know it’s not a simple thing to do in the current world but if laws mandated it then tech would have no choice but to adapt.
Effective [some future date], in order to sell any device connected to the Internet (or Bluetooth, or whatever), you must register your entire codebase and all internal documentation with the FTC, and keep it updated, along with any signing keys to lock bootloaders. The day you abandon support, if you haven’t provided everything required for end users to take complete control of their device, your code base and any other IP enters the public domain, and the FTC uses their discretion on release of keys.
It would take new laws, and you’d have to be careful with language and structure to prevent abuse of “third party” code and abuse of corporate structure to try to prevent old devices from being usable, but you could do it.
This sounds like a security nightmare though. A central repository of all code and keys is a gold mine for exploitation. Don’t get me wrong, I would really want this to work, but if it was compromised it could he catastrophic.
I do think there should be regulations in place that are clearly and easily enforceable by the FTC though. I’d love to see companies be hit with fines and/or compulsory refunds if they stop supporting devices and don’t provide some path forward for customers to keep using the device. That doesn’t solve for startups that go out of business, but it would at least cover the tech giants who are doing this garbage.
The government holds loads of confidential information, including keys. It’s perfectly fine.
Anything short of the code already existing and being ready to release allows bankruptcy to kill devices and isn’t good enough.
This is essentially the premise of Stop Killing Games but in a different world.
This would be an excellent law/regulation that makes complete sense.
The major companies can most definitely manage this (although they will cry crocodile tears).
This is a commendable goal; though it would still rely on good faith that a lot of these companies won’t have.
They’d rather screw the users anyway, sell the IP and let it rot within the maws of some holding company.
We’ll need some clauses that the tech cannot go inactive as it trades hands as well.
Further, some teeth will be needed toward feature deactivation, as there’s nothing stopping a company from yanking features and packaging it up as efficiencies made or product evolution.
Just because a product went defunct does not mean the entire code base is obsolete to the company.
Suppose I release software that makes a profit for a while, then falls off and starts costing me money, obviously time to retire that thing. However, a ton of code in that original product was a stepping stone for newer projects. I now have two choices.
A) Drop support and give world+dog my code, giving everyone a look into my existing products.
B) Keep losing money on the old project and make up for it by overcharging for my latest work.
That’s a lose-lose proposition.
Your self-hosting solution sounds mighty fair!