Can we legislate our way to technological enlightenment?

28^th November 2021

The Free Software movement (if you don't know what this is please read the definition of free software) has always put a large emphasis on people's individual choices. That we can make an impact by spurning non-free software.

The problem is that the percentage of computer users that even know what Free Software/Open Source even is is very low and not enough to create an incentive for software companies to distribute their software under Free/Open Source licences.

In this article I wish to explore what legislation could be brought in that may improve our relationship with technology and create a fertile ground for Free Software/Open Source to thrive.

Outlaw pre-loaded Operating Systems

For devices which are complex enough to require an operating system such as:

phones & tablets
laptops & desktops
TV boxes (e.g. Roku, Chromecast, Firestick)
games consoles

...these devices should be provided blank. The OS should be chosen, bought and installed desperately by the consumer.

This would have many positive effects:

the process of installing an OS, which is currently perceived as black-magic to most, would become an everyday occurrence. This would help the public to have a better understanding of their technology. And tech companies would be incentivized to make this process easy.
the OS market, which is currently completely monopolised, would become an open market. This should drive up the quality and diversity of OS offerings
it would give the consumer huge amounts of power against companies that handicap devices through software or try to force upgrades through withholding software support
the increase in choice of OSes that would inevitably follow would honestly be a lot of fun and help tech to progress much faster

Mandate Source Code to be published

I think mandating all software to be Free/Open Source would be a step too far as it would make it very difficult to make a profit from certain types of software (think specialised software that's sold in small quantities for high prices).

However I can't see any reason not to mandate that all software have the source code published. Software companies can continue to protect their work with Copyright law so there's not really any legitimate counter-argument.

Advantages of Source Code being published would be as follows:

software could be publicly audited which would allow us to actually have faith in the software we are using
companies would be incentivized to write better code to avoid public embarrassment
companies could no longer get away with hiding spyware or deliberate handicaps in their software
being able to actually see the code of the software they are using could help people to perceive software as a comprehensible technology rather than magic. furthermore once people can see the code they might start to wonder if they can modify it which would then encourage more interest in Free/Open Source software.

Sort out the patent system

I am not the most qualified person to write about this but the patent system is a total tire-fire and needs sorting out. Here are some links for your further reading:

Batteries

It's absolutely ridiculous to have a perishable item such as a battery be non-replaceable. It causes an entire device to need replacing just because of an old battery and it also probably results in more toxic chemicals going to landfill.

However making the battery replaceable is only worthwhile if new batteries can actually be obtained (freshly manufactured, not left rotting in a warehouse for three years).

Therefore in order to do replaceable batteries properly we would need a set of standardised battery sizes so that they can be made generically and fit a variety of devices.

In other words for example instead of buying a battery for a Samsung Galaxy S5, you would buy a generic battery which would be in use by many generations of phone and in continuous mass production.

I'd imagine we'd need maybe 10 different standardised sizes for lithium Ions covering everything from phones up-to laptops.

As a bonus I would expect each battery size to increase in capacity over time as energy density increases, so you could actually upgrade your old device to have a higher battery capacity than when it was new :).

Charging

The charging situation is so hilariously stupid that it makes me exasperated just writing about it.

We still have devices using different-shaped connectors to prevent the wrong charger being plugged in ... in 2021.

Obviously the charger and the device should speak to each-other, exchange a list of voltages and currents they support, and choose the most appropriate level (or not charge if they have no compatible charge levels). This way we can have everything use the same charging connector.

Benefits:

only need a new charger if the old one cannot provide an appropriate combination of voltage and current for your new device
opens up the possibility of multi-chargers that can charge everything from phones to laptops.
as chargers would be more versatile and long-term so it would be more palatable to buy more expensive (and thus energy-efficient) chargers rather than the cheapo disposable chargers we use today

We do already have a technology that allows all this and it's called "USB Power Delivery". However it's only supported by a random assortment of stuff such as Android phones and Apple's 2020 line of laptops.

My Windows laptops all still have proprietary connectors and Apple's new 2021 line of laptops have gone back to using a proprietary connector so we're actually going backwards in this area.