It does. Free software interfaces, unlike proprietary, are open standards. Either of that’s cabling or wifi interfacing, a free software interface is common knowledge, which could be used to produce devices allowing for what I mentioned.
It does not. Just because there is FOSS software for something does not mean that the interface to flash that software is known or foss. Along those same lines, just because the software being used in something does not imply that the connectors to actually change that software physically exist in the real world. Along those same lines, the software could be free, open source, known to everyone, but require a connection to a server using private keys that are built in at build time and are not part of the software. This is literally how firefox, chromium, etc are allowed to show Netflix (through EME) and I know for a fact that you wouldn’t claim that firefox and chromium aren’t FOSS. I have now shown you several ways that FOSS does not solve anything shown in the above image, nor what you are talking about.
You saying “which could be used to produce devices allowing for what I mentioned” is just like saying “oh well the plans to build rocketships are all over the internet, it’s common knowledge, which could be used to build a rocket to go to pluto”. Just because the knowledge is there does not mean that:
it’s possible to do in any reasonable timeline,
it’s available for anyone to do. In this case, the ford software being FOSS would literally accomplish nothing, as the majority of people on the planet have no clue and would never want to flash their own software on a $50k+ vehicle).
If it was free software, yes, they would have. Therefore, the importance of free software.
your logic makes zero sense. They do not have to provide any of this. Say they provided the OS. They do not have to provide any of the software to flash it. They do not have to provide the connectors to flash it. They don’t have to tell you which boards you need to flash, which modules need modification, etc. The OS software shown in the image is only a very small fraction of what would need to be provided, the rest of which couldn’t be OSS (they’re physical devices).
By the things you say, you probably don’t even understand “free” software means libre software. I’d suggest you go for a nice Internet research journey in the world of free and open source software: https://itsfoss.com/what-is-foss/
I own and maintain the https://programming.dev lemmy server, and my entire github is 100% FOSS. I have worked with multiple companies to open source their internal software, when they can. I can pretty much guarantee I understand FOSS a lot better than you do.
I strongly associate FOSS with right to repair, in my mental models. To me these topics walk hand in hand, and when I extrapolate from FOSS concepts I also end up extrapolating from right to repair concepts.
Yes, you can obscure slices of the system through non FOSS software. In which case, the thin layer of FOSS indeed wouldn’t solve it. I’m assuming FOSS end to end, where the owners of the car can choose whatever they want for their car. And I’m sure many people would follow their trusted mechanics advice about flashing the FOSS OS in their 50k car. That’s what farmers are fighting for in the US, for their hundreds of Ks tractors and trucks.
There’s another layer of struggle under FOSS. And if we could have legislation passed that requires companies to release their e2e firmware under FOSS licenses, that screen wouldn’t be a problem, and we’d be likely to be able to use the same CarOS just like we can use the same Linux kernel in so many different pieces of computing hardware.
Unfortunately, legislators are in the pockets of car manufacturers and their financeers, too. So you’d need a revolution to get that kind of stuff passed, unfortunately.
It does not. Just because there is FOSS software for something does not mean that the interface to flash that software is known or foss. Along those same lines, just because the software being used in something does not imply that the connectors to actually change that software physically exist in the real world. Along those same lines, the software could be free, open source, known to everyone, but require a connection to a server using private keys that are built in at build time and are not part of the software. This is literally how firefox, chromium, etc are allowed to show Netflix (through EME) and I know for a fact that you wouldn’t claim that firefox and chromium aren’t FOSS. I have now shown you several ways that FOSS does not solve anything shown in the above image, nor what you are talking about.
You saying “which could be used to produce devices allowing for what I mentioned” is just like saying “oh well the plans to build rocketships are all over the internet, it’s common knowledge, which could be used to build a rocket to go to pluto”. Just because the knowledge is there does not mean that:
your logic makes zero sense. They do not have to provide any of this. Say they provided the OS. They do not have to provide any of the software to flash it. They do not have to provide the connectors to flash it. They don’t have to tell you which boards you need to flash, which modules need modification, etc. The OS software shown in the image is only a very small fraction of what would need to be provided, the rest of which couldn’t be OSS (they’re physical devices).
I own and maintain the https://programming.dev lemmy server, and my entire github is 100% FOSS. I have worked with multiple companies to open source their internal software, when they can. I can pretty much guarantee I understand FOSS a lot better than you do.
Fair points.
I strongly associate FOSS with right to repair, in my mental models. To me these topics walk hand in hand, and when I extrapolate from FOSS concepts I also end up extrapolating from right to repair concepts.
Yes, you can obscure slices of the system through non FOSS software. In which case, the thin layer of FOSS indeed wouldn’t solve it. I’m assuming FOSS end to end, where the owners of the car can choose whatever they want for their car. And I’m sure many people would follow their trusted mechanics advice about flashing the FOSS OS in their 50k car. That’s what farmers are fighting for in the US, for their hundreds of Ks tractors and trucks.
There’s another layer of struggle under FOSS. And if we could have legislation passed that requires companies to release their e2e firmware under FOSS licenses, that screen wouldn’t be a problem, and we’d be likely to be able to use the same CarOS just like we can use the same Linux kernel in so many different pieces of computing hardware.
Unfortunately, legislators are in the pockets of car manufacturers and their financeers, too. So you’d need a revolution to get that kind of stuff passed, unfortunately.