4 ms·

I agree that liability has its' place in software engineering. But I don't think, at this point in history at least, we can apply it broadly across the many sub

by drvdevd 10y ago

I agree that liability has its' place in software engineering. But I don't think, at this point in history at least, we can apply it broadly across the many subdomains thereof. For example, we can't hold Linus Torvalds liable when the Linux Kernel has a bug (perhaps not even if it was deliberate!). If we even tried to, the entire project would likely come to a screeching halt. How is this model of liability compatible with large open source codebases?

pjmlp 10y ago
No, not Linus but the ones that caused the failure.
FussyZeus 10y ago
Why would Linus be responsible? That would be like holding Sir Henry Bessemer (inventor of steel) responsible for the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Of course it wasn't his fault: his contribution was used incorrectly, as Linux is frequently used incorrectly by IoT companies. And frankly, if your thermostat malfunctions and runs your heat full bore for a weekend while you're out of town, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, assuming basic requirements were present for functionality (power, connectivity to the furnace, etc.) that the company should be responsible if their system went wrong solely because of poorly designed software. If for nothing else than your outrageous heating bill. And again, if a company's response is "well we don't want to be responsible for your furnace" then my response is "then don't be making fraking thermostats, because that's what they're FOR!"
- drvdevd 10y ago
  I absolutely agree and that's exactly my point: although Linus shouldn't be held responsible, when your IoT thermostat breaks, that still doesn't mean the breakage hasn't been a trickle down result of some technical decision he made at the kernel layer (if it was a kernel bug that caused it anyway). But it's an open source project and he makes the rules and companies have a choice as to whether they want to adopt it. So I would agree that in this hypothetical case, the IoT company needs a custom kernel patch on their device, and hopefully it gets upstreamed. But if all this occurs after your furnace is shot, you're left asking the manufacturer, "Why did you use Linux at all in this product?" You would think they'd then accept responsibility but what if they do try to blame the Linux project and have expensive lawyers to back them up? This all seems to add up to a potential spaghetti mess of blame where the legal model is "doctors and lawyers and bridge builders." In fact I think these problems need to be addressed outside current legal and regulatory systems which frankly can't keep up with the pace of open source software.
ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
> How is this model of liability compatible with large open source codebases? Yes, like in other fields. Obviously people are not chased out of town for as small error. It's when people conspire together to hide big problems that liability becomes important.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  Agreed. Which, as evidenced by the recent emissions scandals, is a quite realistic scenario.

by drvdevd 10y ago

pjmlp 10y ago

No, not Linus but the ones that caused the failure.

FussyZeus 10y ago

Why would Linus be responsible? That would be like holding Sir Henry Bessemer (inventor of steel) responsible for the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Of course it wasn't his fault: his contribution was used incorrectly, as Linux is frequently used incorrectly by IoT companies. And frankly, if your thermostat malfunctions and runs your heat full bore for a weekend while you're out of town, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, assuming basic requirements were present for functionality (power, connectivity to the furnace, etc.) that the company should be responsible if their system went wrong solely because of poorly designed software. If for nothing else than your outrageous heating bill. And again, if a company's response is "well we don't want to be responsible for your furnace" then my response is "then don't be making fraking thermostats, because that's what they're FOR!"

drvdevd 10y ago
I absolutely agree and that's exactly my point: although Linus shouldn't be held responsible, when your IoT thermostat breaks, that still doesn't mean the breakage hasn't been a trickle down result of some technical decision he made at the kernel layer (if it was a kernel bug that caused it anyway). But it's an open source project and he makes the rules and companies have a choice as to whether they want to adopt it. So I would agree that in this hypothetical case, the IoT company needs a custom kernel patch on their device, and hopefully it gets upstreamed. But if all this occurs after your furnace is shot, you're left asking the manufacturer, "Why did you use Linux at all in this product?" You would think they'd then accept responsibility but what if they do try to blame the Linux project and have expensive lawyers to back them up? This all seems to add up to a potential spaghetti mess of blame where the legal model is "doctors and lawyers and bridge builders." In fact I think these problems need to be addressed outside current legal and regulatory systems which frankly can't keep up with the pace of open source software.

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago

> How is this model of liability compatible with large open source codebases? Yes, like in other fields. Obviously people are not chased out of town for as small error. It's when people conspire together to hide big problems that liability becomes important.

drvdevd 10y ago
Agreed. Which, as evidenced by the recent emissions scandals, is a quite realistic scenario.