What does that even mean? Manufacturing is messy, you have to mess with actual physical stuff, it’s not just bits. Having all the blueprints for a refrigerator is a long way from being able to actually build it economically.
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 ).
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.
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
Having a blueprint skips the “development” phase. Then you make instructions on how to build the stuff and be open to support through issues. From experience it works.
What does that even mean? Manufacturing is messy, you have to mess with actual physical stuff, it’s not just bits. Having all the blueprints for a refrigerator is a long way from being able to actually build it economically.
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 ).
In other words, right to repair.
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.
I mean, what is fixing a bug if not repairing the software?
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
Having a blueprint skips the “development” phase. Then you make instructions on how to build the stuff and be open to support through issues. From experience it works.