3 ms·

> be hold responsible for downstream breakages he's not, He's being held responsible for intentionally pushing malware

• esarbe 5y ago
  I don't think he pushed malware, did he? He just broke his own project and published the broken version. That's not pushing malware. I don't get why people don't just pin versions, honestly. I'm not saying he did a good thing. But neither did he push malware nor has he any obligation to publish unbroken packages. If you're using FOSS projects without a service contract, don't whine if something breaks.
  • alexwebb2 5y ago
    "Not pushing malware", _wink wink_. Let's say I set up a lemonade stand in my neighborhood every weekend, where I pour a bunch of cups for people to take, put up a sign that says it's free, and I set out a tip jar. After a few weeks, I get upset that people have been taking the lemonade without leaving tips, so the next time I set up the stand I add a toxin that I know will cause immediate damage to anyone who ingests it. To protect myself, I have of course been posting a sign every weekend that says the lemonade is provided as-is. So – did I do something wrong, or not? Will a court look at this situation and say, "gee, he just poisoned his _own_ lemonade and set it out for public use, it's not like he forced anybody to drink it"? This feels like 100% black-and-white criminal conduct, and I would hope anyone who pulls a malicious stunt like this would be held liable for it.
    • esarbe 5y ago
      This feels like 100% flawed analogy.