@riley I like iFixit and I think repairing over replacing has much to recommend it but really generalizing it involves way more structural change than is generally recognized.

A general right-to-repair is inconsistent with individuals as primary economic actors; nigh-all purchases would need to be made the way some militaries do, which purchase the thing and lifetime spare parts for the thing together and keeps the spares in a supply system thereafter. It runs up the sticker price.

@riley There's a difference between "right to repair" and "required to document".

Full right-to-repair requires things like guarantees of parts availability, which is a whole lot larger and more contentious than a requirement to document. What I thought I was talking about was the (generally not that contentious until people notice documentation does involve costs) requirement to document.

Which has value and would be an improvement over what we have now, even if it's not full right-to-repair.

@riley When I dealt with it twenty years ago, the Korean version applied to complete consumer products like phones and graphics cards. I would assume that a panel as a commercial part sold to people who make monitors isn't covered by the Korean law.

I would not myself be adverse to extending such a law to components but it is a much more complicated subject; I'd want to go with "some, get more later" because even the consumer version of such a law is going to be a challenge.

@riley I would prefer the thing South Korea does with manuals; you can't sell this in their territory until the manuals are in the depository library. (Generally making the docs available online to anyone.) When you stop offering the device or service or whichever, the documentation goes into the public domain. (And as I understand it, resuming sale won't pull the docs back out of public domain.)

TL;DR it's not legal for sale until the full documentation package is in the depository library.