3 ms·

I have my reservations about this code. I am a long time free software developer so it is hard to say it but it seems clear to me that a single entity (from a l

by sounds 10y ago

I have my reservations about this code. I am a long time free software developer so it is hard to say it but it seems clear to me that a single entity (from a legal perspective) has to "own" the self-driving car software. In the future bits of a self-driving car system may get open-sourced the way Facebook Open Compute has emerged in data centers, but first the proprietary implementations will need to pave the way in the legal world. It's not all bad news, though: I'd love to see a free software project that converted my lawn mower into a self-driving lawn mower...

jstanley 10y ago
> it seems clear to me that a single entity (from a legal perspective) has to "own" the self-driving car software. That's not clear to me at all. It seems clear to me that the person operating the vehicle has ultimate responsibility for how it is driven, whether they're personally driving it or not.
- andars 10y ago
  Interesting opinion. However, this isn't current U.S. law. See, for example, the numerous successful suits against Toyota for unintended acceleration. In addition, it may soon be questionable to say that an occupant of a vehicle is "operating" said vehicle if it drives entirely autonomously.
- xg15 10y ago
  That's not clear to me at all. It seems clear to me that the person operating the vehicle has ultimate responsibility for how it is driven, whether they're personally driving it or not. Seems reasonable at first glance, but responsibility makes only sense if you also have the knowledge and power needed for making the right descisions. Unless the driver is expert in the self-driving car field and core contributor to the car software, he'd end up being liable for events he cannot anticipate and has no control over. In such a situation, the only actually responsible descision would be not to use the car at all.
__jal 10y ago
I don't see why. Liability for other dangerous, complex artifacts don't necessarily follow that rule, even when it comes to software, and even when it comes to open source software. GPSd is one example. Used pretty much everywhere, including life-and-death real-world situations. Consumer products (like your car's GPS) including it tend to pop up a "don't be an idiot, but we're not liable even if this malfunctions" screen. (The Pentagon and oceanic research operations, well, I'm the wrong person to ask about how they handle software liability, but kinda doubt we'll see class actions from either.) But the important part is that that screen is not there to protect the authors of GPSd. It is there to protect the VAR.
serge2k 10y ago
You can solve that problem with certification. Sure, the software platform is open but actually building a car and getting it to the road requires certification of the final product.
gridspy 10y ago
Assuming that what you say is true, I believe the distinction here is that a single entity here must package, release and deploy the driving software. But like RedHat and Ubuntu, building a distribution of well proven and flexible open source software is likely the best route to success.

by sounds 10y ago

jstanley 10y ago

> it seems clear to me that a single entity (from a legal perspective) has to "own" the self-driving car software. That's not clear to me at all. It seems clear to me that the person operating the vehicle has ultimate responsibility for how it is driven, whether they're personally driving it or not.

andars 10y ago
Interesting opinion. However, this isn't current U.S. law. See, for example, the numerous successful suits against Toyota for unintended acceleration. In addition, it may soon be questionable to say that an occupant of a vehicle is "operating" said vehicle if it drives entirely autonomously.
xg15 10y ago
That's not clear to me at all. It seems clear to me that the person operating the vehicle has ultimate responsibility for how it is driven, whether they're personally driving it or not. Seems reasonable at first glance, but responsibility makes only sense if you also have the knowledge and power needed for making the right descisions. Unless the driver is expert in the self-driving car field and core contributor to the car software, he'd end up being liable for events he cannot anticipate and has no control over. In such a situation, the only actually responsible descision would be not to use the car at all.

__jal 10y ago

I don't see why. Liability for other dangerous, complex artifacts don't necessarily follow that rule, even when it comes to software, and even when it comes to open source software. GPSd is one example. Used pretty much everywhere, including life-and-death real-world situations. Consumer products (like your car's GPS) including it tend to pop up a "don't be an idiot, but we're not liable even if this malfunctions" screen. (The Pentagon and oceanic research operations, well, I'm the wrong person to ask about how they handle software liability, but kinda doubt we'll see class actions from either.) But the important part is that that screen is not there to protect the authors of GPSd. It is there to protect the VAR.

serge2k 10y ago

You can solve that problem with certification. Sure, the software platform is open but actually building a car and getting it to the road requires certification of the final product.

gridspy 10y ago

Assuming that what you say is true, I believe the distinction here is that a single entity here must package, release and deploy the driving software. But like RedHat and Ubuntu, building a distribution of well proven and flexible open source software is likely the best route to success.