> either need to open-source everything
That'd be problematic, as in many cases the vendor doesn't even have the full source code (think: all of the embedded chips that run their own RTOS), let alone the legal right of relicensing it. Another thing is build reproducibility, the ability to actually flash/install the code, etc. It would be desirable to have all that, but it's far from simple.
> allow everyone who ever bought one to return it for a full refund.
Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item? I would say something like a trade-in program, where you get a % of the original value depending on overall condition. But then it gets tricky as it's difficult to write into law, what "good condition" does actually mean. What if the device has two screens, but only one is broken? What about components that tend to wear out or break during normal use (batteries, straps, hinges)?
But having that process in place could also actually help us recycle more stuff.
Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product. That'd just get the bigger corps even more entrenched (while they figure out the "legitimate interest cookie" equivalent of still screwing you over).
I consider making closed-source more legally difficult to be an additional benefit, not a downside.
> Regardless of the actual physical condition of the item?
Yes. The idea is that it'd be better for things to continue to be safely usable rather than to have to become e-waste, so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them.
> Also, consider the smaller companies, that don't have the resources to effectively give you a 10-year warranty on their product.
Software updates are a lot cheaper than full warranties, and if they make all of their stuff open-source then there'd be nothing else they have to do at all.
Then perhaps start with a copyright reform, otherwise I think you're trying to "solve" too many problems all at once.
> so if the manufacturer chooses the option that requires the latter, the deal should be as one-sided as possible against them.
Meaning only the already wealthy companies can afford to take the risk. You're further empowering the rich.
Firstly, the obvious, laws are local not global. Your proposed law would need to be ratified by 200 odd governments. This seems unlikely (Not least in the US which perfers not to ratify international laws). Given that China is least likely to care, and given that most really cheap phones originate there, I'm not sure your proposed law will work there.
So, to summarise, suggesting global laws, while not necessarily wrong, is as fruitless as suggesting that we use magic pixie dust to solve the problem. Both have exactly the same liklihood of being adopted.
Plus, given that the proposed law dictates -future- behaviour I'm not sure who, how or where an affected person (one who only has money for an ultra cheap phone they haven't updated in 7 years) would get relief from.
> Space Cadet Pinball was not originally written by Microsoft, but was rather obtained via licensing from a company then-known as Cinematronics. This means that there are restrictions on what can be done with the program, as spelled out by the license agreement.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20181221-00/?p=10...
The change would be you can’t ship software like this… I would say that is a net positive.
Free software centers around the user. Everything else is a means to that end. Open source centers around the authors. This is fundamentally misguided.
I couldn’t give two [deleted] about authors and what they want.