tabular @ tabular @lemmy.world

I mention [software freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) w

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

1,184

Joined

2 yr. ago

We promise we won't do anything illegal and worth suing us over, so just waive your right to sue us!

This is a massive oversight in a country's code of law.

These days it's all about the Retroactively Amended Personal Experience: changing the terms after the sale.

I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it further.

If you paid for it then it's your game - not their game.

(Don't care if you ripped it yourself or not)

F is for friends who say Fuck Nintendo

Cease and Dissist - Nintendo Diss Track

I'm sure Nintendo still make great games, but that's not enough anymore.

One day I hope more video game embrace open source/free software values.

I just checked and it's worth nothing to anyone important.

Suppose those specifications are designed with the CPU maker's profits in mind. Maybe motherboard manufacturers lose perks if they misbehave beyond just specifications.

Heck, even GPU makers have managed to make motherboard manufacturers their bitch in the past: licensing chips to support their multi-GPU tech.

Might be a floating point error

CPU manufacturers have a lot of say on what motherboard manufacturers can/must do.

I have not used Ubuntu enough to say I have a bad experience with it. I know of Snap being effectively a proprietary store (a dumb feature) and Canonical has a bad reputation for being like the Microsoft of GNU+Linux.

Linux Mint offers the pros of Ubuntu but with the cons of like-Microsoft decision removed, why would I consider Ubuntu?

I'm not so sure it's actually okay for manufactures to say using aftermarket parts voids the warranty - they need to prove it's actually your fault the device is broken (America's Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act). If you've seen those little stickers over screws that say "warranty void if removed" - those are actually illegal (in America).

You focus on an incompetent grandson hypothetical but it's not as if the 1st party repair is immune from hiring people who can make negligent mistakes, or even take malicious acts. If it's difficult to replace a seal on a mask then perhaps it's a CRAP design.

Companies will preach safety when lobbying against right to repair but when a mask is forced to be recalled for sound/vibration dampening material entering people's lung they will kick and scream.

Safety is not my main goal, it is the freedom to do what you want with what you paid for.

The FDA found there isn't evidence that 3rd party repair is any less safe than 1st party repair.

If one part needs to be replaced and the company who owns the patients/copyright tells the manufacturer to not sell it to others then the patient cost is needlessly a whole new machine. How many lives would be saved by lowering cost of getting medical equipment working?

1. A person doesn't need to study medicine or own surgical equipment to get their body repaired. Same logic applies for the repairing of their medical devices. Right to repair does mean you have to personally repair it.

2+3. I don't think that's a problem. Presumably they're already in contact with others to share information. Do that but as part of a larger, more open community.

When a defibrillator implant incorrectly shocks a pregnant women as an edge case she has to take meds to slow her heart so it doesn't shock her. Doctors never think of the software running on it, and can't get the code because it's proprietary. People would be able to fix it, perhaps without even removing it, but can't because business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=easb_6LCFDI

Thanks for the history and technical explanation. I didn't mean to imply that was the origin (for computing) and was only talking about a specific usage of the word.

I think most people say it to refer to manufacture imposed limits but I wanted to promote a broader usage. That using proprietary software is like being in a jail because your software freedoms are denied.

In the medical field when a device can only be repaired by the manufacturer then you can expect long wait times, bad repair jobs and having your own equipment sent in for repair destroyed for "safety".

We let people repair their own car's brake pads.. we shouldn't give up ownership rights for a unwarranted claim to safety. If something is potentially dangerous then making it more difficult to repair is a bad idea.

The manufacture should have zero say if their product gets repaired or not. The only person who can give permission to repair it is the owner. It should be illegal to implement tying to lockout parts being used as a replacement. Right to repair

They call it jailbreak because this is an issue of freedom: software freedom

What's the reason?

Nuance is the friend of truth. Some parts of EULAs may not be binding if they cross a line, dependent on what country's laws apply and how the judge happens to rule in court.