3 ms·

> Imagine needing a license to write software. It would mean the end of free and open source software as we know it. i don't think so because as you said: > I

> Imagine needing a license to write software. It would mean the end of free and open source software as we know it. i don't think so because as you said: > It's about legal responsibility and liability. Make professional programmers directly responsible for the code they get paid to write. we urgently need liability for for-profit software in order to stop softwares race to the bottom.

heurisko 5y ago
My company has liability insurance. I'm indirectly liable, in that I can lose my job, however. If I were a contractor, I would also buy liability insurance.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  this! software quality is not some kind of "force of nature" or "accident" but a direct result of cutting corners/costs. insurance for beeing lazy will not help.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > I'm indirectly liable, in that I can lose my job If an engineer negligently (note: not knowingly) signs off on a bridge that collapses, they face fines, expulsion from their profession and jail time. At this point, every developer at Facebook should know the harm they’re causing. The most they face is job loss. That’s the problematic asymmetry.
yyyk 5y ago
>we urgently need liability for for-profit software in order to stop software's race to the bottom. If we're going to do that, there's no good reason to give a special exclusion for not-for-profit software.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Of course there is. A programmer writing free software in their bedroom is completely different from a professional writing softwafe for corporations and making 6-7 figures. Society expects a lot more from the latter.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. The reason regulation is suggested is effect on society, and the effect is the same regardless of the engineer's personal status. An engineer designing bridges is liable regardless of his salary, and same must apply to a programmer. Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. The regulation can apply equally to everyone, or don't expect it to go anywhere at all.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > The reason regulation is suggested is effect on society, and the effect is the same regardless of the engineer's personal status. Amateur programmers are not professional engineers. A profession is an activity people are compensated for. If you're not being compensated, it's not professional work. If it's not professional, you should not be held liable for it. Someone publishing a personal project should not be held liable for anything. A professional software engineer deciding to use that project at work without thoroughly reviewing it and causing a security breach due to vulnerabilities in that software should absolutely be held liable for negligence. > An engineer designing bridges is liable regardless of his salary, and same must apply to a programmer. I'm not an engineer but I can draw up a bridge right now. Would it stand or collapse? Who knows. I think it looks nice though so I post it online. Then an actual engineer sees my drawing and makes an actual bridge out of it. The bridge collapses and kills thousands. Who's liable? Me, a random guy who drew a bridge? The engineer who should have known better? > Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. That would require companies to not only refuse to compensate their programmers for their labor but to also open source their source code. Doesn't seem trivial to me.
      - yyyk 5y ago
        >I'm not an engineer but I can draw up a bridge right now. Would it stand or collapse? Who knows. I think it looks nice though so I post it online. Then an actual engineer sees my drawing and makes an actual bridge out of it. Right, it's not the publishing but the use which is proscribed - same applies for engineering. But that would apply regardless of whether the software you're using is open-source or not, and regardless of how much you're paid. A social-media site operated by an amateur in the bedroom being paid nothing and using only open-source software would still be liable under any sensible and realistic regulation. >>Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. >That would require companies to not only refuse to compensate their programmers for their labor but to also open source their source code. Doesn't seem trivial to me. You can compensate for code with this regulation, it's not difficult. e.g. create a non-profit, and pay the non-profit which pays the programmer. So long as the programmer is one step removed from you it's fine. Open source isn't much of an impediment either, just have a suitably restricted licence. Or don't, it's not an impediment for many types of businesses.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
You don't need licenses and gatekeeping to do that. All you need is a signed commit message. It's trivial for a corporation to require something like this.

heurisko 5y ago

My company has liability insurance. I'm indirectly liable, in that I can lose my job, however. If I were a contractor, I would also buy liability insurance.

hansel_der 5y ago
this! software quality is not some kind of "force of nature" or "accident" but a direct result of cutting corners/costs. insurance for beeing lazy will not help.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> I'm indirectly liable, in that I can lose my job If an engineer negligently (note: not knowingly) signs off on a bridge that collapses, they face fines, expulsion from their profession and jail time. At this point, every developer at Facebook should know the harm they’re causing. The most they face is job loss. That’s the problematic asymmetry.

yyyk 5y ago

>we urgently need liability for for-profit software in order to stop software's race to the bottom. If we're going to do that, there's no good reason to give a special exclusion for not-for-profit software.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Of course there is. A programmer writing free software in their bedroom is completely different from a professional writing softwafe for corporations and making 6-7 figures. Society expects a lot more from the latter.
- yyyk 5y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. The reason regulation is suggested is effect on society, and the effect is the same regardless of the engineer's personal status. An engineer designing bridges is liable regardless of his salary, and same must apply to a programmer. Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. The regulation can apply equally to everyone, or don't expect it to go anywhere at all.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > The reason regulation is suggested is effect on society, and the effect is the same regardless of the engineer's personal status. Amateur programmers are not professional engineers. A profession is an activity people are compensated for. If you're not being compensated, it's not professional work. If it's not professional, you should not be held liable for it. Someone publishing a personal project should not be held liable for anything. A professional software engineer deciding to use that project at work without thoroughly reviewing it and causing a security breach due to vulnerabilities in that software should absolutely be held liable for negligence. > An engineer designing bridges is liable regardless of his salary, and same must apply to a programmer. I'm not an engineer but I can draw up a bridge right now. Would it stand or collapse? Who knows. I think it looks nice though so I post it online. Then an actual engineer sees my drawing and makes an actual bridge out of it. The bridge collapses and kills thousands. Who's liable? Me, a random guy who drew a bridge? The engineer who should have known better? > Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. That would require companies to not only refuse to compensate their programmers for their labor but to also open source their source code. Doesn't seem trivial to me.
    - yyyk 5y ago
      >I'm not an engineer but I can draw up a bridge right now. Would it stand or collapse? Who knows. I think it looks nice though so I post it online. Then an actual engineer sees my drawing and makes an actual bridge out of it. Right, it's not the publishing but the use which is proscribed - same applies for engineering. But that would apply regardless of whether the software you're using is open-source or not, and regardless of how much you're paid. A social-media site operated by an amateur in the bedroom being paid nothing and using only open-source software would still be liable under any sensible and realistic regulation. >>Besides, it's trivial to launder everything if you give such an out. >That would require companies to not only refuse to compensate their programmers for their labor but to also open source their source code. Doesn't seem trivial to me. You can compensate for code with this regulation, it's not difficult. e.g. create a non-profit, and pay the non-profit which pays the programmer. So long as the programmer is one step removed from you it's fine. Open source isn't much of an impediment either, just have a suitably restricted licence. Or don't, it's not an impediment for many types of businesses.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

You don't need licenses and gatekeeping to do that. All you need is a signed commit message. It's trivial for a corporation to require something like this.