3 ms·

>Why is this a concern? If you are unable to produce high quality, safe software, then don't make it publicly available. If you make something publicly availabl

>Why is this a concern? If you are unable to produce high quality, safe software, then don't make it publicly available. If you make something publicly available, you should be liable for maintaining it and any damages that software causes due to bugs. Don't blame me for not building the house to code, blame the guy who made my nails, fasteners, and lumber. ^this is what you're endorsing, because any failures generally occur at the stage wherein the End User is adapting the component to integrate into their own systems. Responsibility falls on the composer of a system to deal with the composition's quirks. Anything that tries to put it up a layer is just trying to pass the buck. The Software Author has a particular case in mind. Yours is probably not it, but might become so. If it fits, go ahead and ship, if not, smooth it out. Nothing is stopping you but your unwillingness to wrangle the code.

lijok 3y ago
> Don't blame me for not building the house to code, blame the guy who made my nails, fasteners, and lumber. I'll blame you for using poor quality nails, fasteners and lumber.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  Not what you said earlier > If you make something publicly available for use, you should be liable for maintaining it and any damages that software causes due to bugs.
  - lijok 3y ago
    That does not mean the consumer (the builder) is absolved of any responsibility, nor does it mean that the product of the builder using the poor quality materials is of good quality itself.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      "Quality" is relative. A hinge which is fine for a closet door may be unsuitable for a bank vault.
Ekaros 3y ago
What about the gas stove that leaks gas? Or electric one that have live connected to case... Surely the user is responsible not the manufacturer?
- mindslight 3y ago
  Libre software is more like plans to build a gas stove, and security bugs are more like it not having a safety control such that malicious visitors can leave on an unlit stove to fill your house with gas. Also lets be very clear here - software bugs aren't capable of causing much damage by themselves. If I set up a lone machine running a decades old full-of-holes Linux distribution on a publicly accessible IP, the absolute worst that can happen is its bandwidth being used to create denials of service. It's those who create real-world reliances on inadequate software systems that deserve most of the blame for damages.
- salawat 3y ago
  >What about the gas stove that leaks gas? No modification whatsoever is intended to have to happen to integrate that particular package with the rest of a person's house. This is completely different to how most software works, whereby dynamically linked libraries actual implementations of particular symbols can be changed out from under the user at any time. Therefore, legally speaking the demarcation of liability is far simpler to demonstrate/self-evident. >Or electric one that have live connected to case... Governed by electrical code. >Surely the user is responsible not the manufacturer? Technically yes, the user is ultimately responsible for final detection of, and escalation of the defect. If you don't engage the legal process around a defective, non compliant appliance, nothing happens/changes to fix it. The rest is implementation detail.

lijok 3y ago

> Don't blame me for not building the house to code, blame the guy who made my nails, fasteners, and lumber. I'll blame you for using poor quality nails, fasteners and lumber.

beebeepka 3y ago
Not what you said earlier > If you make something publicly available for use, you should be liable for maintaining it and any damages that software causes due to bugs.
- lijok 3y ago
  That does not mean the consumer (the builder) is absolved of any responsibility, nor does it mean that the product of the builder using the poor quality materials is of good quality itself.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    "Quality" is relative. A hinge which is fine for a closet door may be unsuitable for a bank vault.

Ekaros 3y ago

What about the gas stove that leaks gas? Or electric one that have live connected to case... Surely the user is responsible not the manufacturer?

mindslight 3y ago
Libre software is more like plans to build a gas stove, and security bugs are more like it not having a safety control such that malicious visitors can leave on an unlit stove to fill your house with gas. Also lets be very clear here - software bugs aren't capable of causing much damage by themselves. If I set up a lone machine running a decades old full-of-holes Linux distribution on a publicly accessible IP, the absolute worst that can happen is its bandwidth being used to create denials of service. It's those who create real-world reliances on inadequate software systems that deserve most of the blame for damages.
salawat 3y ago
>What about the gas stove that leaks gas? No modification whatsoever is intended to have to happen to integrate that particular package with the rest of a person's house. This is completely different to how most software works, whereby dynamically linked libraries actual implementations of particular symbols can be changed out from under the user at any time. Therefore, legally speaking the demarcation of liability is far simpler to demonstrate/self-evident. >Or electric one that have live connected to case... Governed by electrical code. >Surely the user is responsible not the manufacturer? Technically yes, the user is ultimately responsible for final detection of, and escalation of the defect. If you don't engage the legal process around a defective, non compliant appliance, nothing happens/changes to fix it. The rest is implementation detail.