and that's a minimum I'll settle on.
Or insurance that covers the complete refund cost of all assets sold. There are cases where you may be using 3rd party software that you license that you cannot open source. And, in that case, you're on the hook for refunding the cost of the item.
Also, cool beans that that is the minimum you'll settle on but how on earth would anyone enforce that? Open sourced software is not enough by far to make something work perpetually: the software will need to be run somewhere and most likely (since you are talking about some sort of net-connected software if this is relevant in the first place) will need security patching to keep up with CVEs. Who is going to pay for that? I don't think it will be the bankrupt entity that stopped existing 10 years ago.
I think wear-and-tear from usage falls under "until broken by me", which I see as intended to cover ordinary breakage that would exist even in absence of copyright and trade secrets.
> Also, cool beans that that is the minimum you'll settle on but how on earth would anyone enforce that?
A large part of the solution would be to stop enforcing copyright, patents, DMCA anti-circumvention clause, etc. in these cases. Companies can be legally compelled to release the server software with fines or restrictions on future sales for non-compliance. In case of bankruptcy, it can be obtained as part of the bankruptcy process going through the company's assets.
> Open sourced software is not enough by far to make something work perpetually: the software will need to be run somewhere and most likely (since you are talking about some sort of net-connected software if this is relevant in the first place) will need security patching to keep up with CVEs.
Some of these devices may legitimately need to be network-connected, but very few legitimately need to be Internet-connected. A local network with a Raspberry Pi running the server is likely fine in most cases.
> Who is going to pay for that? I don't think it will be the bankrupt entity that stopped existing 10 years ago.
I don't think the idea is to force someone to pay to keep servers up or actively maintain the software - but rather to remove artificial barriers in the way of owners/enthusiasts/repair-shops/etc. that already want to do so.
Unless we're applying this retroactively, it'd be an entity currently going through bankruptcy, and their obligation is just the hand-over the source code in its current state.
I think that firmware shouldn't ever be bound by license, meanwhile software should be bound by it but mandated to be updatable/replacable by user - even with custom one.
Then let manufacturers pick where they set the boundary - do they add extra complexity of updating and replacing software to the component? or do they go for licenseless firmware?
Maybe some more levels in the middle like "only connects to the internet for firmware updates" (yellow) and "doesn't require internet access for core functionality" (orange). Basically Nutri-Score [1] for hardware.
And if we assume that complying with the law somehow increases costs in the US market, people will still go buy the cheaper thing anyway. Which means you need to enforce the regulations on importing these things just as strictly as we regulate the import of cigarettes...
Imagine if a country could turn off power to US homes during a conflict. This is critical infrastructure we should be making at home.