6 ms·
I don’t know how you solve this exactly, but I do think allowing open source devs to just wash their hands of all responsibility isn’t a tenable solution. There
by LadyCailin 3y ago
I don’t know how you solve this exactly, but I do think allowing open source devs to just wash their hands of all responsibility isn’t a tenable solution. There’s a reason we don’t have “open source bridges”. You have to be a licensed civil engineer before you’re allowed to build a bridge, you can’t just build one and slap a “NO WARRANTY” disclaimer on it.
Bridges can’t be downloaded from Russia, however, and requiring open source devs to carry liability insurance probably just destroys open source, so I am genuinely unsure how you solve this in practice.
But I think that is a conversation we should be having, rather than just saying that the status quo is the ideal, and allowing no room for discussion.
- pharmakom 3y agoIt’s up to the person choosing and deploying the software to decide if the OSS project is sufficiently secured. This is the person (or party) who should shoulder the blame. I don’t see why someone pushing to GitHub or whatever should have any responsibility for how their stuff is misused.
- LadyCailin 3y agoFollowed to its logical end, this also destroys open source as we know it today. If I’m going to have to vet your OSS with a fine tuned comb before I use it, I might as well just write it myself, and also be unencumbered from whatever license you chose. Only projects backed by FAANG would actually be used then.
- anthk 3y agoThen watch the ActiveX disaster and Blaster coming back but by 20000. Worst Botnet/ransomware attack from NK/Russia ever. The UE on HUGE losses. BSD and GNU depending companies almost get bankrupt overnight. Productivity halts with a worse outcome than COVID.
- rini17 3y agoIt does not work so well in practice. Projects like sqlite and curl had to take steps to hide themselves from end users, who are grasping at straws in face of malfunctioning product.
- pseg134 3y agoThis is a really ridiculous position. All of the software that you pay for is provided with NO WARRANTY. Why do you think free software would be different?
- denton-scratch 3y agoThis isn't about warrantys, which are promises to the consumer. This legislation creates a liability to the state, a third party.
- jasonvorhe 3y agoWhat's stopping anyone from publishing specs, CAD models and instructions on how to build a bridge so that anyone can attempt to build it themselves on their property? Of course you can put a disclaimer on it and tell everyone that they're using it at their own risk. In the area where I live there are few privately owned parks that are open to the public and according to the owner, they can basically do what they want in one of those parks as long as they tell people that they're using everything at their own risk.
- friendzis 3y agoGenerally, there are laws governing construction that any larger scale construction work must be signed off by licensed professionals. A state can go as far as authorize decommission of a construction even on a private land, of course at the expense of the owner.
- anthk 3y agoGood joke. Now go get a non GNU/BSD licensed compiler, linker, TCP/IP stack, Unicode parsing library and so on, try rebuilding 60 years of 'hippie made software' IT by yourself. Look how the EU standarized TM(R) software crashes into itself due to bugs and huge attacks from Russia in less than two weeks.