3 ms·

When we write software as part of a job, we have all kinds of staff who support the project —- project managers, product managers, QA, marketing and sales, secu

by jnovek 4y ago

When we write software as part of a job, we have all kinds of staff who support the project —- project managers, product managers, QA, marketing and sales, security etc etc. It really seems that, for open source projects, the author is expected to be responsible for everything. I think it would be a great benefit to all of us if people who wanted to open up code but didn’t want to add responsibility to their own world felt welcome to do so. I think it’s a problem worth solving.

dataflow 4y ago
> It really seems that, for open source projects, the author is expected to be responsible for everything. If you wrote "for underfunded projects" I would agree with you. It's a pretty universal fact of life regardless of the nature of the source. > I think it’s a problem worth solving. Definitely, I don't think anyone is against a solution to this problem. The question is what we can expect before the envisioned solution is finally created by someone and provided to us.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
saagarjha 4y ago
What’s interesting is that we don’t really have this kind of structure in place elsewhere to my knowledge, outside of open source software. There’s a limit to how much legal liability you can shed, and even after that social liability is much more fickle.
- dataflow 4y ago
  > What’s interesting is that we don’t really have this kind of structure in place elsewhere to my knowledge, outside of open source software. https://developer.apple.com/support/authentication/ https://developer.apple.com/support/authentication/ ?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Not for 2FA, for absolving yourself of all responsibility.
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  It’s the free (no payment) part that makes the difference and outside of the Open Source movement many things are not provided free of charge because of the associated costs. Similar things happen for research papers or generally scientific content though. You won’t be successful in suing an author of a study for incorrect content either.
DannyBee 4y ago
"I think it would be a great benefit to all of us if people who wanted to open up code but didn’t want to add responsibility to their own world felt welcome to do so. I think it’s a problem worth solving." I think i would strongly disagree with this view - this is similar to arguing that people should just be able to release plans for nuclear weapons (or take your pick of less extreme examples) without adding responsibility to themselves, etc. There's no obvious reason they should be able to, or that it is a net benefit to society. It's one of those things that people often think "sounds good", but isn't that great in practice, ever. In fact, most of the problem that exists today in OSS security, support, etc is precisely because of people opening up code without trying to add any responsibility to themselves. At the same time, OSS has produced 100 of everything, so it's really hard to believe arguments that "if we didn't let this happen, things would not progress" and the like. I don't believe we would have been worse in terms of progress, etc, if we instead had 10 of everything, with the people more willing to take responsibility. More practically, society has always believed in balance in every similar sort of thing, so it's not obvious to me why the extreme of "everyone can release anything without any responsibility" is ideal for anyone.

by jnovek 4y ago

dataflow 4y ago

> It really seems that, for open source projects, the author is expected to be responsible for everything. If you wrote "for underfunded projects" I would agree with you. It's a pretty universal fact of life regardless of the nature of the source. > I think it’s a problem worth solving. Definitely, I don't think anyone is against a solution to this problem. The question is what we can expect before the envisioned solution is finally created by someone and provided to us.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

saagarjha 4y ago

What’s interesting is that we don’t really have this kind of structure in place elsewhere to my knowledge, outside of open source software. There’s a limit to how much legal liability you can shed, and even after that social liability is much more fickle.

dataflow 4y ago
> What’s interesting is that we don’t really have this kind of structure in place elsewhere to my knowledge, outside of open source software. https://developer.apple.com/support/authentication/ https://developer.apple.com/support/authentication/ ?
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Not for 2FA, for absolving yourself of all responsibility.
the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
It’s the free (no payment) part that makes the difference and outside of the Open Source movement many things are not provided free of charge because of the associated costs. Similar things happen for research papers or generally scientific content though. You won’t be successful in suing an author of a study for incorrect content either.

DannyBee 4y ago

"I think it would be a great benefit to all of us if people who wanted to open up code but didn’t want to add responsibility to their own world felt welcome to do so. I think it’s a problem worth solving." I think i would strongly disagree with this view - this is similar to arguing that people should just be able to release plans for nuclear weapons (or take your pick of less extreme examples) without adding responsibility to themselves, etc. There's no obvious reason they should be able to, or that it is a net benefit to society. It's one of those things that people often think "sounds good", but isn't that great in practice, ever. In fact, most of the problem that exists today in OSS security, support, etc is precisely because of people opening up code without trying to add any responsibility to themselves. At the same time, OSS has produced 100 of everything, so it's really hard to believe arguments that "if we didn't let this happen, things would not progress" and the like. I don't believe we would have been worse in terms of progress, etc, if we instead had 10 of everything, with the people more willing to take responsibility. More practically, society has always believed in balance in every similar sort of thing, so it's not obvious to me why the extreme of "everyone can release anything without any responsibility" is ideal for anyone.