• DacoTaco
    link
    10
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Imo open source doesnt explicitly mean “you can build it yourself”
    What it does stand for is that incase of issues it can be looked at and resolved. Be it finding the broken component, or looking at the designs and reporting the fault. Both of which improve the thing that is open sourced.
    As an example : the framework laptop. Its partly open source, so in case of issues i could bring it to a repairshop which then can easily look at the designs, and figure the fault.
    Or what i did with my home server sbc : get the schematics, figure out a manufactoring fault ( cracked solder on pci lane ), fix it and report it to the manufacturer ( which then investigated if it was a one off or if a solder type change was needed ).

    • @Arbiter
      link
      45 months ago

      In other words, right to repair.

      • DacoTaco
        link
        35 months ago

        Depending on the angle, yes. If its for repairs, then yes. If its for product (manufactoring) improvements, then no. Im a software developer that often collaborates with other teams of open source software. I report, and sometimes fix, bugs so it improves the overal product for everyone. I wouldnt put that under right to repair, as it has nothing to do with repairing it yourself and more with improving a product for everyone by tackling a problem with the product at the source.

        • @Arbiter
          link
          15 months ago

          I mean, what is fixing a bug if not repairing the software?

          • DacoTaco
            link
            25 months ago

            Reporting the bug without fixing it is not repairing the software :p
            This is a topic about manufactoring, thats a different thing as its more based on processes and blueprints