We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

Then I shouldn't be able to install software on it at all. For any given device either its functions are fixed, or they're modifiable at the sole discretion of the owner. There should be no middle ground.

Why?

Think about music rights ownership - there are mechanical rights, performance rights, sync rights, derivative rights, etc. I'm not defending music industry ownership system, but it shows clearly that binary view of ownership is far from reality.

You own the flat, but you can't remove the wall. You may own the house, but you can't build a factory there due to zoning regulations. You can own electric car, but you can't put diesel fuel there.

I see that main disagreement here is whether phones are "general purpose computers" or not. I have no idea why anyone would call these ultra-packed cameras on steroids a "general purpose computer". Framed like this, this is a debate about OP demanding private companies to transform their product into something very different and urging governments to step in. And the thing is those products exists – Libreum 5, Ubuntu Phone or PinePhone phones, or already mentioned Maemo/MeeGo phones (N900/N9/N950). If they were a better product on the market, we would have them everywhere, but industry and market decided otherwise (PinePhone was discontinued just couple of weeks ago, sadly).

What are we talking about exactly? Ownership as in IP, or ownership of a copy?

>You own the flat, but you can't remove the wall.

Of course I can, as long as the wall is internal and non-structural. Everything inside the inner surfaces of the external walls is mine.

>You may own the house, but you can't build a factory there due to zoning regulations.

Well, zoning laws exist because plots of land don't exist in isolation, and affect each other. If I choose to run software X on a computer I own, how does that per se affect anyone else, that I should not be allowed to do so? Not that I should be punished if I do it, but that I should be stopped technologically from being able to attempt it? As I see it, there should be a very compelling reason to infringe on property rights in such an invasive way.

>You can own electric car, but you can't put diesel fuel there.

Literally what's stopping you from opening the charging port of your electric car and pouring in a can of diesel if you really want to? Or, for a more realistic example, what's stopping you from modifying your car by installing a diesel generator in the backseat that continuously charges the battery as you drive?

>I have no idea why anyone would call these ultra-packed cameras on steroids a "general purpose computer".

If you really wanted, you could build an APK yourself to use an Android phone to host a website. Is it good idea? I don't know. That's for you to decide. But in what way is a device that's capable of doing this not a "general purpose computer"? What more does it need?

>Framed like this, this is a debate about OP demanding private companies to transform their product into something very different

No. Phones are already this. They have processing elements, memory, stored programs... They're just computers. No one should get to decide what my computer runs over me. If I want to run something I should be able to run it, and if I want to stop something from running I should be able to stop it. Whether that causes problems for myself is my own business. I don't understand what's so complicated about this, or why anyone would argue against this.

About your claim that ownership as a concept is black and white, and no middle ground should be allowed.

> I don't understand what's so complicated about this, or why anyone would argue against this.

It's hard to understand the world if you see things through a binary lens - no ownership vs full ownership, or total support vs outright rejection. A more useful framework is to see what people support, reject, and tolerate.

For example, I totally support open-source hardware and software, and would love to see more of it. But I also tolerate proprietary hardware and software stacks, for many reasons. I'm definitely not rejecting the concept of private companies making hardware that runs their proprietary software and taking control over decisions about what software should run on their hardware.

From your comments, I see that you also support what I support, but you're totally rejecting the idea of hardware that runs proprietary software or not allowing you to run your own. So these calls for the government to step in and force private companies to disallow that concept are something I definitely can't support.

It's certainly more useful for those who want to take what's yours.

>I'm definitely not rejecting the concept of private companies making hardware that runs their proprietary software and taking control over decisions about what software should run on their hardware.

What "their" hardware? It's not their hardware, it's your hardware! You didn't lease it, you didn't borrow it; you bought it outright. On top of that, it's running on your electricity. If you let someone else tell your hardware what it is or isn't allowed to do, you're just a fool. Congratulations, you paid money to give a conglomerate of corporations permission to run software on your premises, on your dime. What a deal! Hey, wanna buy my game console? Just put it in your home with access to the Internet and once in a while I'll let you play a game on it, provided it's been "idling" enough for my tastes.

>but you're totally rejecting the idea of hardware that runs proprietary software

No I'm not. I'm not even arguing that we should be able to change the OS. Honestly, I don't think that's that important. But we shouldn't accept not being able to even install any application software we want. What's even the point of it being a computer at that point?

Why not ?? They have even more built-in 'peripherals' and are much more portable than a desktop !

Also, PinePhone wasn't discontinued, only PinePhone *Pro* was.