>"If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it."

Should you get the source code to all software running on it, along with all the relevant documentation and a right to modify it as you see fit? Without that, it's not really full control.

Yes. That has been the position of free software advocates for as long as the free software movement has existed.

I don't really know about source code, but at the very least, you should have access to any crypto keys, code, passwords or other such thing needed to modify it. Furthermore, reverse engineering any aspect of the thing and sharing the specifications you have discovered should not be illegal.

Absolutely. I think all software being libre is a tad extreme, but we shouldn’t be locked out of being able to run what we want on the devices. Especially once they’re no longer supported.

What you should have is the option to chose to only run software whose source code/documentation/etc meets your needs.

Also that the devices' uses should be up to their owners, not their manufacturers. Devices are tools, not services.

Are there "hacked" (read, opensource) software versions of the software available for these farm machines, or is it illegal to produce open source software for such "proprietary" pieces of machinery?

I haven't been keeping up with the "Right to Repair" movement as close as I should have, I'm afraid, and I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole it goes. Does it drop down so far as to touch the software that runs the machine systems on these, or is it purely mechanical?

EDIT: At this point in my life I should be able to spell =(

> If it’s your device then you should have 100% control over it.

Yeah, but you also don't have the "right" to run your device on shared public spaces with your modifications that make it substantially more dangerous to other users of the same public space.

I'm fine with that so long as the burden of proof rests on those claiming that the modifications make the device "substantially more dangerous"—keeping in mind that the most dangerous component of any vehicle tends to be the one sitting in the driver's seat.

The idiot in the driver's seat is likely the idiot who thinks that lowering their car by cutting the coil springs is a good idea, and will be the same idiot who thinks that messing with the ABS logic is sensible.

Perhaps, but so what? The existence of certain dangerous modifications does not imply that all modifications would be dangerous. If you mess with the ABS logic (or anything else) and the modifications contribute to an accident then you're obviously going to be liable for that. On the other hand you could simply install a custom infotainment unit or some third-party or DIY heated seats, in which case I see no reason to preemptively ban the vehicle without clear evidence that the modifications pose a threat to other users of the road.

A reasonable compromise would be to require any modifications to be disclosed at registration, but with a policy of approving them by default unless there is a good, evidence-based reason to think that they pose a significant risk.