5 ms·
You're not aware of the simplistic, single header C library culture that some developers like to partake in. Tsoding (a streamer) is a prime example of someone
by hypeatei 1y ago
You're not aware of the simplistic, single header C library culture that some developers like to partake in. Tsoding (a streamer) is a prime example of someone who likes developing/using these types of libraries. They acknowledge that these things aren't focused on "security" or "features" and that's okay. Not everything is a super serious business project exposed to thousands of paying customers.
- zwnow 1y agoSo if its a hobby project designed for just a handful of people, its suddenly okay to endanger them due to being sloppy?
- hypeatei 1y agoThis is an open source project that you're not obligated to use nor did you pay for it. Who is it endangering? The license also makes it clear that the authors aren't liable for any damages.
- flykespice 1y ago...and what open source software license in the world makes the author liable for damages?
- k_roy 1y agoProbably more of lack of explicit liability in the license.
- virtue3 1y agoevery OSS license I've ever seen is "use at your own risk" essentially. That's how this whole system works. You find a vulnerability? patch it, push change to repo maintainer. https://xkcd.com/2347 https://xkcd.com/2347
- flykespice 1y agoPretty sure the all caps text on the bottom of most open source licenses out there makes it clear
- Yeask 1y agoNone. That is how RedHat makes money.
- account42 1y ago> The license also makes it clear that the authors aren't liable for any damages. The license disclaims liability but that doesn't mean the author cannot ever be held liable. Ultimately, who is liable is up to a court to decide.
- nkrisc 1y agoThe code nor author don’t endanger anyone. Whoever uses it inappropriately endangers themselves or others. Why are you using random, unvetted and unaudited code where safety is important?
- Yeask 1y agoOpen Source is about sharing knowledge. They are sharing their knowledge about how to create a tiny JSON parser. Where is the problem again?
- tossaway0 1y agoYes, pretty much. It has enough of a warning.
- layer8 1y agoHobby projects that prove useful have a tendency of starting to be used in production code, and then turning into CVEs down the road. If there is a conscious intent of disregarding safety as you say, the Readme should have a prominent warning about that.
- f1shy 1y agoMy personal take is: if the code is good enough, it should be trivial to switch to a better library at the point when needed.
- hypeatei 1y ago> Hobby projects that prove useful have a tendency of starting to be used in production code Even if that is true, how is that the authors problem? The license clearly states that they're not responsible for damages. If you were developing such a serious project then you need the appropriate vetting process and/or support contracts for your dependencies.
- layer8 1y agoI didn’t say it’s the author’s problem. It’s a problem with the code.
- ethanwillis 1y agoWhy play all these semantic games? You're saying it's the author's problem. You want them to even edit their readme to include warnings for would be production/business users who don't want to pay for it.
- layer8 1y agoGP is arguing about licences. Yes, formally there is no obligation, and I'm not saying the author has any such obligation. In the present case, either the missing overflow check in the code is by mistake, and then it's warranted to point out the error, or, as I understood GGGP to be arguing, the author deliberately decided to neglect safety or correctness, and then in my opinion you can't reject the criticism as unwarranted if the project's presentation isn't explicit about that. I'm not making anything the author's problem here. Rather, I'm defending my criticism of the code, and am giving arguments as to why it is generally good form to make it explicit if a project doesn't care about the code being safe and correct.
- taminka 1y ago> They acknowledge that these things aren't focused on "security" or "features" and that's okay. where? single header is just a way to package software, it has no relation to features, security or anything such...
- TZubiri 1y agoEither you are : - overestimating the gravity of a UB and its security implications - underestimate the value of a 150 line json parser - or overestimate the feasibility of having both a short and high quality parser. It sometimes happens that fixing a bug is quicker than defending the low quality. Not everything is a tradeoff.
- nurettin 1y agoI have tsoding fatigue. Took a long time to get him out of the main page. I like the DIY attitude, but it gets old really fast.