By extension should every device I own require me to have access to the source code and output data?
Not a rhetorical question.
Not a rhetorical question.
If you're OK with someone else (who probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities) controlling all of your devices, then the answer is no, you are not required to have access to the source code and output data.
EDIT: I didn't realize this was such a controversial statement. I stand by it, though; even as I knowingly own many such devices myself. I can certainly see, however, how I may want more control over a pacemaker than, say, my phone.
In the case of a pacemaker or other medical devices, this liability could even include manslaughter.
(As an aside, the suggestion that a software developer writing firmware for pacemakers "probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities" seems unfair. You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that goes into ensuring that critical systems behave properly.)
I wouldn't either. I have seen some of it, and not that much effort goes into it. A lot of paperwork goes into saying that the effort was done, but the actual effort carried out pales in comparison.
It's more about finding someone else to blame than to make sure nothing bad happens. Organisations like the frickin' FDA who have no idea how software is developed are in charge of worldwide standards of medical software bureaucracy.
The majority of the code, especially if as said in the article it has wifi and listens to external requests, is code that requires only expertise in more general software, of which there are many many people who are qualified to review such software (or write it).
I'm sure I'd lack a lot of the heart mechanics side of the equation, but I would be very highly incentivised to hunt out programming bugs.
Now we find people who like yourself have to specify that the radical position that all software should be free is something worthy of serious consideration. That they're not joking or trying to be deliberately provocative.
What happened to us? Why did we go from boasting about installing Linux on a dead badger and talking about how all software will some day be free to being afraid to seriously consider the proposition?
Basically, it's easier to tell where there is no Linux than the opposite. That surely doesn't sound like such a failure. It's as if all the other OSes and systems are front-ends for Linux subsystems.
What happened to us?
Because HN started as part of YC its culture really likes VC-backed startups. And we think VCs want the kind of huge returns that are seen more often by closed source companies - they want to back the next Microsoft or Apple or Google or Facebook or Paypal or Amazon, not the next Red Hat or Canonical or MySQL.
It wouldn't make much sense for people to believe free software is a moral imperative, while aspiring to launch huge closed-source companies.
It's good enough for most people, we have some Unix under the hood if we go looking for it, free software has mostly won. Or something. I really don't know. I miss the rebels of yesteryear.
The impression I get is that it's mostly the opposite: people have mostly given up on the notion of having all (or majority of) software being Free, and see that more and more as a pipe dream. Hence they don't want to "waste" their enthusiasm on something that feels like a (literal) utopia now.
There's a lot of reasons combined to get people there:
* seeing corporate behemoths everywhere that want to keep critical software proprietary
* many more people wanting to monetise their own software, and seeing that GPL-ing software offers only a few (and not-universally-applicable) monetisation strategies
* seeing that the "all bugs are shallow" and "everybody pitching in will make Free software the best there is" turn out not really true in practice
* seeing that in practical terms, having access to read and modify source code means nothing in 99% of cases because of software overload and others' code being so hard to get into that it's often practically impenetrable.
Not to say that I agree with all or any of these completely, but it's easy to see such a multi-pronged attack pushing back hard against the FSF's message. Further reducing FSF's ability to spread the message is the widespread character assassination of RMS as an "insane, overly idealistic, and rude slob" that has been going on for at least a decade.
As someone that read the Halloween documents non-stop overnight, it makes me a bit sad too.
http://www.sylvialiuland.com/2012/01/mafalda-classic-cartoon...
HN is clearly not attracting much of the FLOSS crowd.
It's an interesting proposition.