5 ms·
Before this conversation gets out of hand let's analyze how asinine this is: you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software. Let's move beyon
by ihsw 13y ago
Before this conversation gets out of hand let's analyze how asinine this is: you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software.
Let's move beyond that obvious stumbling block and assume their non-existent jurisdiction actually exists: how do you expect this to be enforced? Do we levy fines against any entity (human or otherwise) distributing non-compliant web browsers? Do we install ransomware on people's computers that locks their devices unless only authorized browsers are installed?
When bits pass by my router then I will do with them as I please.
- rayiner 13y ago> you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software. If you build a house for free, does that mean it's exempt from building codes?
- ihsw 13y agoWhat I install on my device is nobody's concern except my own. If people don't want to use my software then they don't have to.
- akiselev 13y agoWhat? You don't live in a piece of open source software. Oh and by the way, you OWN a house.
- tptacek 13y agoSo? Building codes aren't an artifact of ownership.
- jholman 13y agoAnd, relatedly.... if I offer to perform allegedly-medically-beneficial surgery for free, am I exempt from all the laws about regulation of medical practice? And relatedly, if I give away viruses for free, am I good to go? Not that I'm particularly sanguine about the odds of legislators getting it right, but I agree with rayiner that "open-source" isn't a GOOJF card. On the other hand, it seems clear that code I write only for my own use has different regulatory requirements. In general, laws often let people do riskier things for themselves, relative to risks they let people take on behalf of others. But in this case, if you write code for yourself, it's obvious that you opted in to its features.
- alistair77 13y agohmm, construction and medical practice require legislation because dodgy practices may well result in harm to individuals. I don't see that's relevant here. BTW, I support the move by Mozilla.
- rayiner 13y ago> Not that I'm particularly sanguine about the odds of legislators getting it right, but I agree with rayiner that "open-source" isn't a GOOJF card. Right. I think a law that said that open source browsers had to do this or that would be stupid. But that's a strawman anyway. The regulation would probably involve what advertisers could do, or regulate browsers sold with PCs or tablets, or whatever. Not that I'm in favor of regulating it at all... but the fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.