4 ms·

I've always wanted to expose myself to unlimited legal liability by distributing open source software.

by jjmarr 4mo ago

Terr_ 4mo ago
That seems like a false-dichotomy between two extremes when there's all sorts of space in the middle... It's also assuming developer-to-developer tools would have the same rules and exposure as in service-to-consumer. If I sell a physical motor (let alone plans for one) I'll have some liability for things like it Not Exploding. If someone buys a dozen of those motors to assemble a tragically unsafe "rollercoaster" of their own design and construction, I'm almost certainly not responsible for any terrifying decapitations. In other words, most of the world already does not rely on the issuance of "Get Out Of Infinite Liability Free" cards.
- ChuckMcM 4mo ago
  Exactly this. (and it is a false dichotomy to argue infinite liability). To Terr_'s point, if you were publishing open source you would also publish exactly the things you intended it to be used for and anything else would violate your warranty (possibly implied) that it does what the documentation says it does. There is a huge amount of tort law that covers exactly when it becomes a problem for you the creator vs you the user in your own project. And that liability is also based on once you know something bad could happen you make an effort to notify people[1]. [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agrees-to-Pay-14-15-Million-Civil-Penalty-for-Failure-to-Immediately-Report-Bacterial-Hazard-with-Pine-Sol-Scented-Multi-Surface-Cleaning-Products https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...
  - Ajedi32 4mo ago
    Software can be copied infinitely, so even $1 of liability is effectively infinite since an unlimited number of people can potentially use it and sue you when it blows up. Nobody's going to be distributing software on the internet for free if the cost of insurance alone precludes that.
    - ChuckMcM 4mo ago
      This is not how liability works, anywhere. So I write a piece of code that "makes your screen do cool things" and it causes the power supply to fail on those screens. Someone reports that bug to me and I check it out and say "Oh, shit it does break power supplies." Then I immediately put a notice on and in the code that says "WARNING: This code will break the power supply of your montitor." And I put that warning in the repo. And if there is a Discord or a mailing list I tell everyone "Hey, this is important, if you run this code it can break your monitor." Guess what, I'm not liable for the damage. Why? Because I immediately responded once I knew that it could, I made a good effort to warn people who might already have the code of the risk, and I made it clear in the code that this risk is there. Ever wonder why you get a booklet of warnings when you buy a product with even really stupid things like "Don't clean with gasoline" warnings? That's because once you have discharged your duty to warn you are not longer liable in what happens if someone ignores your warning. The flip side is also true, you cannot say in your product both "Hey this product does these cool things" and "We don't warrant the product to actually do anything." This is especially true if there is money involved (like your user paid your some $ for the product.) There is always an implied warranty that the thing will do what you says it will do, which exists as long as the user has heeded all your warnings.
      - aleqs 4mo ago
        There's a pattern I noticed, especially on this site, where people claim various VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, etc MUST be allowed, otherwise open source or 'the internet' will face some sort of existential risk. No bro - open source and the internet existed long before SV tech parasitism did and will exist long after.
        ChuckMcM 4mo ago
        I don't disagree, that pattern exists, but it is essentially true. Just not in the way the folks saying it is true understand it. If the "VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, Etc." wasn't allowed then their job might not exist. That can be true. What is missed is that if there is value in the thing, then it will exist. When I reflect back to someone making this argument by saying, "So your argument is that you make your living as a pick pocket, but if pick pocketing is made to be illegal, you won't be able to make a living." Which of course would only be true if they only thing they could do was 'be a pick pocket'. Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed. All the arguments that "you'll put all coal miners out of business if you require only green energy" And yet the people, the miners themselves, will likely be fine. The firms might not, but there are other firms that could exist. This isn't a new problem, or one specific to this web site, although it does get disproportionately hit because so many technology companies saw what Google started in the 2000's and said, "Man there is soooo many ways to get money for this." rather than, "Is this a reasonable way to make money? Sure it is 'perfectly legal' but is it right? Is it moral?" The type of person who thinks that something is "Only illegal if you get caught" is neither moral nor particularly concerned about what is right. And we got a lot of that type.
- jjmarr 4mo ago
  The United States/Canada don't have a "loser pays" rule, so this exposes me to legal fees. Right now, any lawsuit against me can be dismissed on summary judgement because even if my software causes harm, that's not a legal wrong to the extent I've disclaimed liability. If you adopt any fact-specific standard for liability, that needs to be adjudicated in a trial. The legal fees alone would surpass the actual liability. That creates huge leverage for the party with more resources. That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give.
  - Terr_ 4mo ago
    > That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give. I think you're assuming some kind of worst-possible outcome that hasn't been proposed and is unlikely to be enacted. To quote from earlier in the thread: "Disallow disclaiming liability on software used in a product." I don't think that changes your hobby work on a rational-math library or an MVC framework or whatever, since you aren't making a business out of it. It will affect that large enterprise if they roll out their new product "Yearning 4 Mines: Gatcha Gig-work For Kids."
ncallaway 4mo ago
Would that be software used in a product? I don't think that would qualify?
skywhopper 4mo ago
Ensuring Meta is responsible for its products would not need to assign liability to someone offering open source software.
trumpdong 4mo ago
They did say a product. Is it a product if you're not selling it or even giving it away but you just made it available for download?
- lukan 4mo ago
  Depends on the jurisdiction I think. And if you take donations, the line gets blurry even faster.

I've always wanted to expose myself to unlimited legal liability by distributing open source software.

by jjmarr 4mo ago

I've always wanted to expose myself to unlimited legal liability by distributing open source software.

Terr_ 4mo ago

That seems like a false-dichotomy between two extremes when there's all sorts of space in the middle... It's also assuming developer-to-developer tools would have the same rules and exposure as in service-to-consumer. If I sell a physical motor (let alone plans for one) I'll have some liability for things like it Not Exploding. If someone buys a dozen of those motors to assemble a tragically unsafe "rollercoaster" of their own design and construction, I'm almost certainly not responsible for any terrifying decapitations. In other words, most of the world already does not rely on the issuance of "Get Out Of Infinite Liability Free" cards.

ChuckMcM 4mo ago
Exactly this. (and it is a false dichotomy to argue infinite liability). To Terr_'s point, if you were publishing open source you would also publish exactly the things you intended it to be used for and anything else would violate your warranty (possibly implied) that it does what the documentation says it does. There is a huge amount of tort law that covers exactly when it becomes a problem for you the creator vs you the user in your own project. And that liability is also based on once you know something bad could happen you make an effort to notify people[1]. [1] https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agrees-to-Pay-14-15-Million-Civil-Penalty-for-Failure-to-Immediately-Report-Bacterial-Hazard-with-Pine-Sol-Scented-Multi-Surface-Cleaning-Products https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/Clorox-Agre...
- Ajedi32 4mo ago
  Software can be copied infinitely, so even $1 of liability is effectively infinite since an unlimited number of people can potentially use it and sue you when it blows up. Nobody's going to be distributing software on the internet for free if the cost of insurance alone precludes that.
  - ChuckMcM 4mo ago
    This is not how liability works, anywhere. So I write a piece of code that "makes your screen do cool things" and it causes the power supply to fail on those screens. Someone reports that bug to me and I check it out and say "Oh, shit it does break power supplies." Then I immediately put a notice on and in the code that says "WARNING: This code will break the power supply of your montitor." And I put that warning in the repo. And if there is a Discord or a mailing list I tell everyone "Hey, this is important, if you run this code it can break your monitor." Guess what, I'm not liable for the damage. Why? Because I immediately responded once I knew that it could, I made a good effort to warn people who might already have the code of the risk, and I made it clear in the code that this risk is there. Ever wonder why you get a booklet of warnings when you buy a product with even really stupid things like "Don't clean with gasoline" warnings? That's because once you have discharged your duty to warn you are not longer liable in what happens if someone ignores your warning. The flip side is also true, you cannot say in your product both "Hey this product does these cool things" and "We don't warrant the product to actually do anything." This is especially true if there is money involved (like your user paid your some $ for the product.) There is always an implied warranty that the thing will do what you says it will do, which exists as long as the user has heeded all your warnings.
    - aleqs 4mo ago
      There's a pattern I noticed, especially on this site, where people claim various VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, etc MUST be allowed, otherwise open source or 'the internet' will face some sort of existential risk. No bro - open source and the internet existed long before SV tech parasitism did and will exist long after.
      - ChuckMcM 4mo ago
        I don't disagree, that pattern exists, but it is essentially true. Just not in the way the folks saying it is true understand it. If the "VC/ad/tech dark patterns, enshitification, privacy violations, dishonest marketing, Etc." wasn't allowed then their job might not exist. That can be true. What is missed is that if there is value in the thing, then it will exist. When I reflect back to someone making this argument by saying, "So your argument is that you make your living as a pick pocket, but if pick pocketing is made to be illegal, you won't be able to make a living." Which of course would only be true if they only thing they could do was 'be a pick pocket'. Its a very common rhetorical technique to argue that the status quo cannot be changed. All the arguments that "you'll put all coal miners out of business if you require only green energy" And yet the people, the miners themselves, will likely be fine. The firms might not, but there are other firms that could exist. This isn't a new problem, or one specific to this web site, although it does get disproportionately hit because so many technology companies saw what Google started in the 2000's and said, "Man there is soooo many ways to get money for this." rather than, "Is this a reasonable way to make money? Sure it is 'perfectly legal' but is it right? Is it moral?" The type of person who thinks that something is "Only illegal if you get caught" is neither moral nor particularly concerned about what is right. And we got a lot of that type.
jjmarr 4mo ago
The United States/Canada don't have a "loser pays" rule, so this exposes me to legal fees. Right now, any lawsuit against me can be dismissed on summary judgement because even if my software causes harm, that's not a legal wrong to the extent I've disclaimed liability. If you adopt any fact-specific standard for liability, that needs to be adjudicated in a trial. The legal fees alone would surpass the actual liability. That creates huge leverage for the party with more resources. That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give.
- Terr_ 4mo ago
  > That kills hobbyist open-source development, since if your project takes off but a large enterprise finds it defective, they can threaten to sue you to enforce the "warranty" you were required to give. I think you're assuming some kind of worst-possible outcome that hasn't been proposed and is unlikely to be enacted. To quote from earlier in the thread: "Disallow disclaiming liability on software used in a product." I don't think that changes your hobby work on a rational-math library or an MVC framework or whatever, since you aren't making a business out of it. It will affect that large enterprise if they roll out their new product "Yearning 4 Mines: Gatcha Gig-work For Kids."

ncallaway 4mo ago

Would that be software used in a product? I don't think that would qualify?

skywhopper 4mo ago

Ensuring Meta is responsible for its products would not need to assign liability to someone offering open source software.

trumpdong 4mo ago

They did say a product. Is it a product if you're not selling it or even giving it away but you just made it available for download?

lukan 4mo ago
Depends on the jurisdiction I think. And if you take donations, the line gets blurry even faster.