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

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.

deleted by creator

“What!? You don’t like the erosion of ownership rights? You’re an asshole!” - you.

I didn’t mean to imply charging additionally for the cheats. Is the state of the games industry so bad that was a reasonable assumption :(

I was thinking of dedicated servers aimed at attracting cheaters, and a server that encourages players to fight handicapped players (various levels of cheat users).

As a player I agree but as a software user and maker I don’t. Users should be in control of their own computing, therefore client-side anti-cheat is the unjust power over the user (edit, because it is proprietary).

Has anyone tried? As far as I know the most that has been done is to shadowban cheaters to their own servers for matchmaking. No one has tried having built-in multiplayer cheats to compete with 3rd party cheats.

As an adult you may notice you spend less time with your friends. So if you’ve tried that you’d know how sad it is when you can’t play games with your friends because of your values. When you care about video games then your interpretation of “the point” leaves a lot to be desired. I aspire for a better gaming industry.

I think Ubisoft didn’t notice, or very likely attributed others reasons for less sales.

I don’t like DRM so I don’t use streaming services like Netflix. If friends or work colleges keep talking about some show then I read Wikipedia plot section to get an idea 💀

Have you tried not buying something in protest? If so have you noticed they keep selling it anyway and you have no alternative? Not giving them money isn’t enough.

I’m not a fan of DoSA as it’s rather strongarm but at least this actually sends a message to them AND other users.

I’m not interested in having to fight anti-features to play what I paid for, but at least circumventing it sends a message.

If you were to treat cheaters as you may treat pirates, a service problem, then the overlap of Linux users and cheaters is a circle of unsatisfied users.

The human brain is compartmentised: you can damage a part and lose the ability to recognizes faces, or name tools. Presumably it can be seen as multi-stage too but would that be a defense? All we can do is look for evidence of copyright infringement in the output, or circumstantial evidence in the input.

I’m not sure the creativity of writing a prompt means you were creative for creating the output. Even if it appears your position is legal you can still lose in court. I think Microsoft is hedging their bets that there will be president to validate their claim of copyright.

There are a few Creative Commons licenses but most actually don’t prevent commercial use (the ShareAlike is like the copyleft in GPL for code). Even if the media output was public domain and others are free to copy/redistribute that doesn’t prevent an author selling public domain works (just harder). Code that is public domain isn’t easily copied as the software is usually shared without it as a binary file.