3 ms·

If this goes, we can assume that like other practices where practitioners are liable: - insurance industry will come in and be the real winner. - practitioner

If this goes, we can assume that like other practices where practitioners are liable: - insurance industry will come in and be the real winner. - practitioners will be required to have some sort of license to practice (eg be professional engineers). - there will be norms, standards, certification authorities, and review committees for when something falls through. The auditing business might also come into the case. - there will appear some sort of a cast system, such as doctors/nurses/medical assistants, dentists/dental assistants/dental receptionist, lawyers/legal assistants, etc. - costs and delays will go up for the customers, by much more than the occasional payoff from a lawsuit will bring - quality, notably of compliance and security will go up, which is what's desired by that law.

kjksf 2y ago
I wonder how do you expect a high school kid or collage student to afford insurance and get "some sort of license to practice"? Say goodbye to Linux - released by college student. Say goodbye to Winamp - released by a high schooler. Say goodbye to GTK+ and GIMP - released by 2 college students. Say goodbye to web browsers - why would Tim Barners-Lee or his employer CERN release a free product not related to their core mission if they could get sued by thousands of people?
- eesmith 2y ago
  Linux, open source, not covered under this requirement. Wikipedia tells me 'Winamp was first released in 1997, when Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev,[6][7][8] formerly students at the University of Utah', which makes them not high-schoolers. It was released by Nullsoft, Inc. GTK+ and GIMP, open source, not covered under this requirement. CERN httpd, open source, not covered under this requirement. By 'not covered under this requirement' I mean the following text in the directive applies: > Free and open-source software, whereby the source code is openly shared and users can freely access, use, modify and redistribute the software or modified versions thereof, can contribute to research and innovation on the market. Such software is subject to licences that allow anyone the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. In order not to hamper innovation or research, this Directive should not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity, since products so developed or supplied are by definition not placed on the market.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    And how does it apply to open source software if commercial activity is done with it. You install a PBX at a customer site? You install LibreOffice at a government site? The way I read this it's the first person that uses this for a commercial application that becomes liable.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      That has squat all to do with a 'high school kid or collage student' or CERN, which was the concern of the comment I replied to. If you install a PBX which is two years out of date and has a high-severity, easily-triggered security hole which has since been patched, who is responsible? Who should be responsible?
      - spwa4 2y ago
        The manager who explicitly demanded you install that version because that's what their nephew said was the best version?
        eesmith 2y ago
        By my reading, that means you are not a manufacturer of the software so are not covered under this directive.

kjksf 2y ago

I wonder how do you expect a high school kid or collage student to afford insurance and get "some sort of license to practice"? Say goodbye to Linux - released by college student. Say goodbye to Winamp - released by a high schooler. Say goodbye to GTK+ and GIMP - released by 2 college students. Say goodbye to web browsers - why would Tim Barners-Lee or his employer CERN release a free product not related to their core mission if they could get sued by thousands of people?

eesmith 2y ago
Linux, open source, not covered under this requirement. Wikipedia tells me 'Winamp was first released in 1997, when Justin Frankel and Dmitry Boldyrev,[6][7][8] formerly students at the University of Utah', which makes them not high-schoolers. It was released by Nullsoft, Inc. GTK+ and GIMP, open source, not covered under this requirement. CERN httpd, open source, not covered under this requirement. By 'not covered under this requirement' I mean the following text in the directive applies: > Free and open-source software, whereby the source code is openly shared and users can freely access, use, modify and redistribute the software or modified versions thereof, can contribute to research and innovation on the market. Such software is subject to licences that allow anyone the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. In order not to hamper innovation or research, this Directive should not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity, since products so developed or supplied are by definition not placed on the market.
- spwa4 2y ago
  And how does it apply to open source software if commercial activity is done with it. You install a PBX at a customer site? You install LibreOffice at a government site? The way I read this it's the first person that uses this for a commercial application that becomes liable.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    That has squat all to do with a 'high school kid or collage student' or CERN, which was the concern of the comment I replied to. If you install a PBX which is two years out of date and has a high-severity, easily-triggered security hole which has since been patched, who is responsible? Who should be responsible?
    - spwa4 2y ago
      The manager who explicitly demanded you install that version because that's what their nephew said was the best version?
      - eesmith 2y ago
        By my reading, that means you are not a manufacturer of the software so are not covered under this directive.