3 ms·

I am also not a lawyer, but this is what I found for NY and would be surprised if it doesn't apply in most states and many other countries too: > Under New Yor

by ziml77 5y ago

I am also not a lawyer, but this is what I found for NY and would be surprised if it doesn't apply in most states and many other countries too: > Under New York law, a party can waive ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence, reckless conduct, willful/wanton conduct, or intentional acts. See Kalisch-Jarcho v. City of New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377 (1983); See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 195 (1981) (“A term exempting a party from tort liability for harm caused intentionally or recklessly is unenforceable on grounds of public policy.”).

encryptluks2 5y ago
This would be like suing a food pantry because they stopped giving out free food.
- smt88 5y ago
  Marak didn't stop giving out free food. He intentionally poisoned a food delivery without notifying the recipients. Using your food pantry analogy, it sounds more like he should go to jail.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    He didn't deliver food. People picked up whatever they could find cause they felt entitled, and then said... oh look there was a sign here all along.
    - Macha 5y ago
      If we're stressing the analogy, Marak put food out in a park with a sign "Take the food, just tell everyone you got it from Marak, quality not guaranteed". Then one day the food had laxatives because he felt not enough people put money in the tip jar. I think that would still be actionable. Most people wouldn't bother, just like I don't think anyone is seriously thinking of taking Marak to court over what is mostly broken CI builds, but maybe the park staff won't let him offer food there anymore.
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        There was no more "food". An loop in a script isn't malicious, as a user can terminate a script and by running an unknown script they are assuming some liability as well. What you're advocating for is that if an open source developer changes their code, even to say, prompt the user to confirm executing when before they didn't prompt and that somehow breaks automation that the user has built (not the developer) then they should be liable for harm. It sets terrible precedence, and the end result is no on will want to create open source software anymore. I can only hope you are simply playing devils advocate than being serious, cause if you are serious then I hope you reap what you sow.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        "By eating food of unknown provenance they are assuming some liability as well" isn't really an argument that would hold up in a court of law if someone intentionally taints the food. > What you're advocating for is that if an open source developer changes their code, even to say, prompt the user to confirm executing when before they didn't prompt and that somehow breaks automation that the user has built (not the developer) then they should be liable for harm. We should probably divide the conversation into two threads: one on the tainted-food analogy, and one on the changing-code reality. Because they aren't the same, and one can reach weird conclusions trying to conflate them. Liability for tainted food is pretty settled law. If someone eats your food and gets sick, it's a problem for you. If they eat it and get sick and can prove you poisoned it, it's a real problem with real legal consequences. Food handlers and preparers go out of their way to avoid both of those scenarios. Intentionally modifying code knowing you'll break downstream consumers hasn't been tested (to my knowledge) in court, so we can set that aside. But is it immoral? That's going to depend on one's morality, but I have a hard time seeing my way to agreeing with the standpoint "Sure, it's moral. User beware." That principle, written large, creates a strictly worse world, where people are hiding in their digital caves, unable to trust anything outside. A lot of people (including GitHub and NPM's owners) are trying ot build something better than that. Marak had a right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it was right, we don't have to agree that "because he could, it was good" (that's just rule-by-power, and almost nobody thinks that's a good moral philosophy), and I applaud the open-source community who stepped in to minimize his harm.

by ziml77 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago

This would be like suing a food pantry because they stopped giving out free food.

smt88 5y ago
Marak didn't stop giving out free food. He intentionally poisoned a food delivery without notifying the recipients. Using your food pantry analogy, it sounds more like he should go to jail.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  He didn't deliver food. People picked up whatever they could find cause they felt entitled, and then said... oh look there was a sign here all along.
  - Macha 5y ago
    If we're stressing the analogy, Marak put food out in a park with a sign "Take the food, just tell everyone you got it from Marak, quality not guaranteed". Then one day the food had laxatives because he felt not enough people put money in the tip jar. I think that would still be actionable. Most people wouldn't bother, just like I don't think anyone is seriously thinking of taking Marak to court over what is mostly broken CI builds, but maybe the park staff won't let him offer food there anymore.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      There was no more "food". An loop in a script isn't malicious, as a user can terminate a script and by running an unknown script they are assuming some liability as well. What you're advocating for is that if an open source developer changes their code, even to say, prompt the user to confirm executing when before they didn't prompt and that somehow breaks automation that the user has built (not the developer) then they should be liable for harm. It sets terrible precedence, and the end result is no on will want to create open source software anymore. I can only hope you are simply playing devils advocate than being serious, cause if you are serious then I hope you reap what you sow.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        "By eating food of unknown provenance they are assuming some liability as well" isn't really an argument that would hold up in a court of law if someone intentionally taints the food. > What you're advocating for is that if an open source developer changes their code, even to say, prompt the user to confirm executing when before they didn't prompt and that somehow breaks automation that the user has built (not the developer) then they should be liable for harm. We should probably divide the conversation into two threads: one on the tainted-food analogy, and one on the changing-code reality. Because they aren't the same, and one can reach weird conclusions trying to conflate them. Liability for tainted food is pretty settled law. If someone eats your food and gets sick, it's a problem for you. If they eat it and get sick and can prove you poisoned it, it's a real problem with real legal consequences. Food handlers and preparers go out of their way to avoid both of those scenarios. Intentionally modifying code knowing you'll break downstream consumers hasn't been tested (to my knowledge) in court, so we can set that aside. But is it immoral? That's going to depend on one's morality, but I have a hard time seeing my way to agreeing with the standpoint "Sure, it's moral. User beware." That principle, written large, creates a strictly worse world, where people are hiding in their digital caves, unable to trust anything outside. A lot of people (including GitHub and NPM's owners) are trying ot build something better than that. Marak had a right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it was right, we don't have to agree that "because he could, it was good" (that's just rule-by-power, and almost nobody thinks that's a good moral philosophy), and I applaud the open-source community who stepped in to minimize his harm.