@asadotzler proprietary software will never be illegal for the same reason that mcdonalds doesn't have to share the recipe for their secret sauce: it's a trade secret that enables the business to be competitive in the marketplace. it would eviscerate the software market and the value of engineering labor. i think it is more plausible to pass legislation requiring all software purchased through state and federal acquisitions processes to be open source.
@asadotzler I'll push back slightly by suggesting that yes, the types of systems you're referring to should be publicly owned & controlled, and have robust democratic oversight -- however I don't agree that open source is necessarily desirable in every case.
@asadotzler technically you can't be stopped from decompiling software either. and government regulators still have to protect the confidentiality and trade secrets of the companies whose products they evaluate.
@asadotzler I confess to being a late comer to the FOSS belief system. Still not on board for "all software," but certainly for the seminal, infrastructural platforms and protocols the world and democracy should depend on. I'm already concerned that ChatGPT is owned by a "profit-capped" company, not a true nonprofit.
@asadotzler doesn't this privilege those with the most resources and access to expertise? Most people (me included) can't be expected to pull apart the software that stores their medical records, but a life insurance company could employ several people to look for exploits full-time. There are also national security implications for many systems, no?
@asadotzler i don't disagree that the latter would be better than the former, i just don't see either being made into a reality under our current political system and economic order. i think you'd be more likely to pass a law requiring all software procured by the u.s. gov't be open-source and non-proprietary than a law requiring all corporations to make their software non-proprietary.
@asadotzler every major software vendor in america would just flee to a country where that wasn't the law.
@asadotzler Right, but I don't particularly want those national security systems (or systems vital to security such as power grids or air traffic control systems) having their open source code being scrutinized by a hostile state. I'd prefer there was some asymmetry in that respect. With checks and balances, of course, like the NGOs you mentioned above.
@asadotzler if i have a defeatist attitude towards the kind of legislation that can and will get passed in washington, it's because i've lived in this country my whole life and know that capitalists will not allow you to undermine their ability to generate asburd profits in any way. they have the entire congress under their thumb and any consumer-protecting legislation would be eviscerated in a heartbeat, like the c.f.p.b.
@asadotzler look what they did to the infrastructure bill. look what they did to the climate bill. look what they do to every bill that could do any good for anyone except the rich and corporations.
@asadotzler Except food can be inspected for quantifiable diseases, contaminants, and other harms. Who would decide what a software harm is, and what it should be inspected for? It sounds like you're saying all software should be open source. That's a pretty big ask that doesn't sound very realistic.
I am definitely sympathetic to this statement, I just don't think it's entirely practical, considering how often things like Linux kernel bugs are found.
An analogy: should anybody, friend or foe, be able to stroll into a nuclear power plant for the purposes of auditing their security protocols and safety practices?
@asadotzler I can't see you ever convincing even one government to enact such laws, and without almost ubiquitous adoption it would never happen. I never begrudge anyone their windmills, but you'll be tilting at the one for a very long time :)
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@asadotzler I agree; it is an analogy as opposed to an example.
