3 ms·
> If I later discover that the crash was put there deliberately, I am going to call that malice, and malice that has directly impacted a functioning business an
by johnchristopher 7y ago
> If I later discover that the crash was put there deliberately, I am going to call that malice, and malice that has directly impacted a functioning business and its customers.
Hey, it's open source party ! Where is your patch ? /s
edit: oh, bummer. Not really open source. Still: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, etc.
How are we supposed to have code free of malice in the current javascript ecosystem ?
- luckylion 7y agoYou touch on an interesting point there if the typical disclaimer is included: does that actually protect against willfully damaging code? It's certainly (and reasonably so) very hard to hold a developer accountable for a bug in an open source library they published. But what if they put rm -rf / in the installer with the intent to delete the files of anybody running it? Does "you should've looked" really work there, or is there an assumption of good nature and malicious behavior voids the disclaimer?
- aidenn0 7y agoObviously everything depends on what court has jurisdiction, but aside from the fact that such disclaimers already have little weight, even signed waivers will not protect you from malice or neglect in many places.