6 ms·

Someone should sue them, for knowingly, willlingly releasing bug ridden, security issue laden software. Seriously. This is a perfect test case. It should sta

by b112 4y ago

Someone should sue them, for knowingly, willlingly releasing bug ridden, security issue laden software. Seriously. This is a perfect test case. It should start with a 15 day demand letter, and progress from there.

sgift 4y ago
So, someone should put all of the free and open source software at risk (if the "we guarantee nothing" part of their license doesn't hold ground for them it holds ground for no one) because you want to attack the ASF for not doing what you want? What a great plan.
CDRdude 4y ago
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
- b112 4y ago
  A warranty is not the same as willful negligence.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    Why is there no resposnibility on the part of the user?
- dymk 4y ago
  The software equivalent of “shall not be infringed”.
b112 4y ago
I see downvotes, but there is a difference between "our stuff has a bug" and "we're actively keeping this project alive, including updating binary downloads, even though we know it has endless CVEs, some of them years old." One is an innocent problem. The other is willful negligence. And we need to start suing for this sort of thing. We need fines for companies willingly causing harm.
- afavour 4y ago
  > we need fines for companies I think the reason you’re getting downvotes is that Apache is a non profit foundation, not a for profit company. So fining them isn’t going to do a lot of good (as well as being very unlikely to succeed)
  - b112 4y ago
    The point is to get them to fix, or take it down. A fine per day, until compliance, can motivate well. Being nonprofit doesn't mean you can willingly hurt people (getting hacked) either.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      A fine for what crime?
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > Apache is a non profit foundation, not a for profit company. So fining them isn’t going to do a lot of good Why? I don't see why fining non-profits is any less effective than fining for-profits.
    - taftster 4y ago
      Possibly even more effective.
    - kjeetgill 4y ago
      It might be effective... but is it doing any good?
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        If you think getting OpenOffice off people's machines is good.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
JackFr 4y ago
IANAL, but the license includes both a a disclaimer of warranty and a limitation of liability. Further I think to sue you need to demonstrate actual harm. Absent a security breach, for which you might get a day in court, they haven't harmed you. Stop using their software. Stop bullying people with lawyers. > This is a perfect test case. Indeed, and maybe your legal theory fails.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There are plenty of jurisdictions where such a disclaimer is void. France, for example, probably. Or anyway somewhere in Europe. News that Apache had been forbidden to perform downloads to France, and then more places, might help raise awareness that it shouldn't be downloaded at all, nohow. Maybe it would even push Apache to stop offering it entirely, and to link to the Libreoffice site instead.
  - shakow 4y ago
    > There are plenty of jurisdictions where such a disclaimer is void. France, for example, probably I would be surprised, as such disclaimers are included in the official French flavor of the GPL family (http://cecill.info/licences.fr.html); http://cecill.info/licences.fr.html); section 8.2.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      I would assume that the disclaimer protects the copyright holder but not the distributor. The European approach to consumer protections is generally more about ensuring that things are safe by default than about warnings and disclaimers. A lot depends on the expected competence of the target audience. If you distribute professional tools directly to professionals, they can be expected to read the warnings and understand that misuse could be dangerous. If you market and distribute something to the general public, ensuring safety is your responsibility.
      - shakow 4y ago
        > I would assume that the disclaimer protects the copyright holder but not the distributor. Why assume when you could check? Because the license text shows that you're wrong, just read section 8.2 once again.

by b112 4y ago

sgift 4y ago

So, someone should put all of the free and open source software at risk (if the "we guarantee nothing" part of their license doesn't hold ground for them it holds ground for no one) because you want to attack the ASF for not doing what you want? What a great plan.

CDRdude 4y ago

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.

b112 4y ago
A warranty is not the same as willful negligence.
- JackFr 4y ago
  Why is there no resposnibility on the part of the user?
dymk 4y ago
The software equivalent of “shall not be infringed”.

b112 4y ago

I see downvotes, but there is a difference between "our stuff has a bug" and "we're actively keeping this project alive, including updating binary downloads, even though we know it has endless CVEs, some of them years old." One is an innocent problem. The other is willful negligence. And we need to start suing for this sort of thing. We need fines for companies willingly causing harm.

afavour 4y ago
> we need fines for companies I think the reason you’re getting downvotes is that Apache is a non profit foundation, not a for profit company. So fining them isn’t going to do a lot of good (as well as being very unlikely to succeed)
- b112 4y ago
  The point is to get them to fix, or take it down. A fine per day, until compliance, can motivate well. Being nonprofit doesn't mean you can willingly hurt people (getting hacked) either.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    A fine for what crime?
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Apache is a non profit foundation, not a for profit company. So fining them isn’t going to do a lot of good Why? I don't see why fining non-profits is any less effective than fining for-profits.
  - taftster 4y ago
    Possibly even more effective.
  - kjeetgill 4y ago
    It might be effective... but is it doing any good?
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      If you think getting OpenOffice off people's machines is good.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

JackFr 4y ago

IANAL, but the license includes both a a disclaimer of warranty and a limitation of liability. Further I think to sue you need to demonstrate actual harm. Absent a security breach, for which you might get a day in court, they haven't harmed you. Stop using their software. Stop bullying people with lawyers. > This is a perfect test case. Indeed, and maybe your legal theory fails.

ncmncm 4y ago
There are plenty of jurisdictions where such a disclaimer is void. France, for example, probably. Or anyway somewhere in Europe. News that Apache had been forbidden to perform downloads to France, and then more places, might help raise awareness that it shouldn't be downloaded at all, nohow. Maybe it would even push Apache to stop offering it entirely, and to link to the Libreoffice site instead.
- shakow 4y ago
  > There are plenty of jurisdictions where such a disclaimer is void. France, for example, probably I would be surprised, as such disclaimers are included in the official French flavor of the GPL family (http://cecill.info/licences.fr.html); http://cecill.info/licences.fr.html); section 8.2.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    I would assume that the disclaimer protects the copyright holder but not the distributor. The European approach to consumer protections is generally more about ensuring that things are safe by default than about warnings and disclaimers. A lot depends on the expected competence of the target audience. If you distribute professional tools directly to professionals, they can be expected to read the warnings and understand that misuse could be dangerous. If you market and distribute something to the general public, ensuring safety is your responsibility.
    - shakow 4y ago
      > I would assume that the disclaimer protects the copyright holder but not the distributor. Why assume when you could check? Because the license text shows that you're wrong, just read section 8.2 once again.