3 ms·
You already have the liability, you just don't realize it because nobody has tried to sue you over anything. Laws will provide specific behaviors that constitu
by mywittyname 3y ago
You already have the liability, you just don't realize it because nobody has tried to sue you over anything. Laws will provide specific behaviors that constitute liability, rather than the "anything we can prove was damaging."
At least a legal framework will tell you what you should and shouldn't be doing.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoToday the disclaimers in most software and the non commercial nature generally insulates you from liability unless they can demonstrate some extreme situation like maliciousness. A regulatory framework that doesn’t carve giant holes in liability for open source will stifle it, as it will erode the giant hole being used today. In the context of the topic (memory safety and other issues in software used widely) you can’t divorce that from open source and just hold commercial software culpable for their compliance. By introducing some sort of regulatory structure around software quality you necessarily either exempt open source, leaving a huge surface area untouched, or you essentially kill non commercial contribution.
- pjmlp 3y agoMost of those disclaimers don't hold in court in many jurisdictions. Also outside computing industry everyone is liable on the eyes of the law, even if doing charity.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoAny references to case law? AFAIK none really exists because it’s generally assumed that non commercial open source licenses with disclaimers are pretty legally resilient so haven’t been tested. But my scope is US only.
- pjmlp 3y agoFor example EULAs are not valid in many European countries, because you haven't signed any contract when paying for the product. If the user has accepted such provision before making the binding acquisition of the said product, then it is another matter.