I would sure love to see some open source firmware for my smok x priv e-cig, or any other e-cig mod. I would love to add a timer function to it than would gradually increase the time interval between allowed puffs until I can quit.
It's sad how much useful technology is locked up by conglomerate organisations. Millions of people use these CAD systems to build amazing products, but they pay huge fees for the privilege to do so.
I suppose the companies deserve the reward, I just wish open-source CAD had the same calibre as open-source browsers or OS's...
And all the sneaky, dark-patterned ad shit.
1) Who and what defines "critical"? I limited my statement to medical software which is already regulated and where there are product sales.
2) I think automotive should also count. Is any automotive software currently regulated? I assume so.
3) "Open source" is only triggered on the distribution of software. If I buy regulated medical software, or buy a car, then that should count as a distribution. But "ICBM" is different. The government buys the software, but there is no compulsion in 'open source' to distribute the software more widely. Which means there's little practical difference if the software were required to be open source.
Similarly, only those who buy Boeing planes would have access to the Boeing software, not passengers or the general public.
Does the US "sell" ICBMs to other countries, or just "loan" them the systems?
4) The flaw in my original statement is that the software can't simply be "open source", but the license must also prevent 'Tivoization'. Just because I buy and have a pacemaker installed in my body, and the software is open source, and the hardware is updateable, that's not enough. I also need any security keys needed to install my patched version to the hardware.
5) Lastly, the software for dark-pattern ads isn't distributed to those who view the ads, so "open source" doesn't gain anything.
Also on UI side, liked it more than Gimp.
You might want to give it shot.