Re:An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker r...
by slowmovintarget on Saturday October 12, 2024 @02:05AM
(#41816827)
Putting code in escrow is usually done as part of the contract between the business and the customer, and the code is in escrow for that customer not for everyone.
Re:An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker r...
by mlyle on Saturday October 12, 2024 @03:35AM
(#41817174)
Sure-- the point is the escrow infrastructure already exists. And it's been used the exact way I describe.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow#Software_op...
Re:An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker r...
by bigiain on Saturday October 12, 2024 @03:10AM
(#41817065)
The article talks about Medicare subsidising 80% of the purchase price for many customers. That'd be a fairly effective place to negotiate such an escrow contract.
Re:An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker r...
by bruce511 on Saturday October 12, 2024 @01:53AM
(#41816773)
As an option between developers and customers, of course you can do this now, and it happens.
That's very different though to a law that requires source to be released.
The former is something you do because you believe it gives you the edge in a sale.
The latter is a regulatory framework that imposes problems on everyone unilaterally.
Re:An exoskeleton let a paralyzed man walk, then its maker r...
by scratcheee on Saturday October 12, 2024 @03:10AM
(#41817066)
Only everyone who goes bankrupt, and their creditors.
Rather the opposite for their customers.
I’m sure there’s a few cases where this would excessively hurt a company’s prospects (perhaps where a company has an innovative software product with a thin hardware component), but in the majority of cases losing access to the software of a hardware product as an asset is a relatively small loss, and the benefit to consumers is pretty huge. I’d support the trade off.
It's relatively straightforward. You put the code or whatever else your customers need into escrow with a third party. The code gets released if you discontinue the product or it otherwise leaves the market.
You then market that you're doing this, so that everyone A) knows they can pursue getting access to the escrowed stuff, B) it's a selling point to remove some of the vendor risk, and C) it's not just a capricious action to undermine creditor rights.
Of course, it may be harder to borrow money if you do this. And customers are generally not savvy enough to require this (though if you do a large enterprise deal, requiring code escrow is not an unknown term).