Again, you're way, way outside the context of products liability, but from your cite... > The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of

Again, you're way, way outside the context of products liability, but from your cite... > The majority common law rule among the 50 states is that the owner of a stolen vehicle will not be held liable for damages when the vehicle is stolen and then involved in an accident that causes injury or property damage. This is a list of states which have varied from the majority common law rule! If a state creates a statute which says you can be fined for selling ice cream on Sundays, guess what? If your fear is the feds, like these states, may do something crazy when writing the statute, that may be a legit fear. But that doesn't have anything to do with what are traditional common law tort principles, or with the content of the article. > I think that a court could easily determine a FOSS contributor was liable if they knew of a way in which the use of their software could cause harm to a user or 'victim' of the software. You think? I suppose you can think anything you wish. But you're going to need to show your work. Like -- here are the elements of a product liability tort. Here, is how the facts apply to those elements. Conclusion, liability could result. > I am not sure the word 'product' does any work here. It does all the work I need it to do? Your core problem is a "product" must be sold. Your/our FOSS is not sold unless you/we sell it. If some ridiculous goofball takes my FOSS and puts it in a product, and there is a problem, that's his problem because he made it a product and sold it, not mine.