5 ms·

EU Wants Developers to be Liable for Code; Provide Guarantees That Software will Work

34 points by mdasen 18y ago

gills 18y ago
I guess the EU won't be using a whole heck of a lot of software then, will they?
marcusbooster 18y ago
As soon as they can guarantee all government services will work.
- joubert 18y ago
  Maybe there's a build dependency between govt. services and software and sometimes it breaks?
jackowayed 18y ago
This is almost sort of reasonable, until >According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software. So I'm now liable for that project I wrote in one night for myself that I released under the MIT License if anyone from the EU finds it, uses it, and runs into some security hole? That's going lead to a whole new brand of licenses that say, "Anyone may use this, unless you're in the EU, in which case I can't handle the liability. Sorry, your parliament sucks." In fact, I would argue that this law would void open source licenses in the EU anyway. From the MIT License: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Doesn't that imply that the software can't be used anywhere where a warranty is mandatory? The license states that there's no warranty, so you're violating the license by having a required warranty.
- paulgb 18y ago
  IANAL, but it looks like this only covers commercial transactions. I'm guessing it applies to things like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not free as in beer software.
  - thingie 18y ago
    It's about consumers rights, where consumer is: (quote) any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - paulgb 18y ago
      I can't tell whether that would include a "consumer" of free-as-in-beer software. After reading the link you posted above, it seems that a money-back guarantee would comply with the regulation. That should be easy enough for someone writing free-as-in-beer software to offer :).
- thingie 18y ago
  Well, that's what the BSA director said. The article says almost nothing about the actual proposal. So we have to read it at EC pages here (link is not included in the article, of course). http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm It's in this PDF: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2008_0614_F_EN_PROPOSITION_DE_DIRECTIVE.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2008_..., page 20. Well, I'm not really sure what does it mean.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- dxjones 18y ago
  The govt could go after a software vendor that knowingly sold their "NO WARRANTY" software in a jurisdiction where a "WARRANTY IS MANDATORY". Legislators don't like it when companies try to "undo" or "go around" their legislation.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
- pmjordan 18y ago
  Cars do tend to come with a guarantee of some kind, and I'm pretty sure EU consumer protection laws do extend to them. That doesn't extend indefinitely, of course, but this article says nothing about the duration of liability.
pmjordan 18y ago
Although I'm certainly not sold on this idea [1], I find it amusing that the BSA representative is against it; after all, one of Microsoft's main arguments against F/OSS is that there's nobody liable for its correct function. Maybe because the EU laws covering warranties only apply to consumers, not businesses, and Microsoft would have to offer consumer-level customer support of some kind as part of the license. (as far as I know you currently have to pay per issue for support unless you have some kind of contract with MS) [1] I don't see how someone writing open source software in his or her spare time in any way deserves to be liable for malfunction, for example; another worry is the amount of ambiguity involved at all stages, from "intended use" to the definition of "efficacy and security", along with the technical complexity and explosion of possible combinations of software on the average computer
- gdee 18y ago
  Oh, that's just one part of the inconsistency shown in the BSA quotes. "Digital content is not a tangible good and should not be subject to the same liability rules as toasters" is also interesting seeing how in regards to [intellectual] property they very much push the opposite stance. "extending consumer regulation to software could lead to less interoperability between software products" is just shameless seeing how the EC had to force some (much fought against) interoperability down some of the bigger memberst of the BSA.
axod 18y ago
The EU needs disbanding :( Complete waste of money. This is just another example of them making up work for themselves to do to justify their existence. Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this. It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants.
- zcrar70 18y ago
  Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this. It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants. Unfortunately, that type of thing happens all over the world, not just in the EU parliament. I don't think that disbanding the EU would resolve the problem of politicians making decisions about things they have little to no understanding of.
  - axod 18y ago
    True, but at least without the EU, the UK would be free again to govern itself unhindered, with its own elected politicians.
    - weavejester 18y ago
      I don't think our politicians are any better, really. Local politicians make equally bone-headed moves, such as the UK's DNA retention schemes, or France's 3-strikes rule. In these cases, the EU has actually been the one opposing political idiocy. It's also worth noting that most dumb ideas from the EU (including this one) come from the unelected European Commission. The EU parliament, whilst far from perfect, doesn't seem to be quite so stupid, and unlike the EC, the EU parliament is made up of elected MEPs. I'd be in full favour of getting rid of the EC, but the EU has been a very powerful economic equalizer in Europe, which in the long term is probably a good thing for all European countries. It's also a force that discourages local politicians from being dumber than average, so schemes like punishing people outside the judicial system, or keeping the DNA of innocent people tend to be resisted by most MEPs. At least, that's been my experience with the EU. Feel free to come up with counterexamples :)
dgallagher 18y ago
There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe. Bureaucratic laws like this stifle innovation rather than promote it. How about we make the EU politicians and lawmakers liable for the laws they pass? If a law they make happens to harm the economy in any way, they'll have to cover any such losses out-of-pocket.
- axod 18y ago
  This isn't a law. It's a bizarre, stupid suggestion. >> "There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe" I'd like to see your data for that one. I really don't think it's due to bureaucracy. Starting up in the UK at least is ridiculously simple, and cheap - £25 will get you a Ltd company.
  - gdee 18y ago
    The second paragraph though makes a great point.
  - dgallagher 18y ago
    Good question. Note by "entrepreneurial endeavors" I meant start-ups, and not mom/pop "home businesses." Companies which plan to scale to a reasonable size (20-1000+ employees), essentially. I've come to that perception from economic classes I took in college, and from general observation of start-ups. This is a good article which elaborates on entrepreneurial differences between the U.S. and Europe, citing economic, government, and social differences, among other things: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216037 http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?sto... Noteworthy quote: "And far fewer start-ups in those countries become big businesses. Janez Potocnik, the EU commissioner for science and research, points out that only 5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%." It's not that doing a start-up in Europe means you're doomed. There's just less of them which make it big. Also, "Europe" encompasses a bunch of different nations with different attitudes and laws. The U.K. is much different than Finland, or Denmark, etc... So bunching them all together as I did isn't entirely fair. If you look at one of the charts in the article, Denmark/Sweden/Finland all in-line with the U.S. when it comes to venture capital. If you look at Europe as a whole at the bottom of the chart, averaging all nations together, you see a much different picture.
andr 18y ago
This was proposed by Meglena Kuneva, the consumer protection comissioner for the EU. I attended a talk she gave in Harvard. While she seems dedicated to her work she often blames companies for consumers' lack of judgment. For example, she blamed Apple for corrupting the youth with iPods.
godDLL 18y ago
There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything. It all depends on the context in which the code is being used. Building software is a trial-and-error process, and building large pieces of software is a large trial-and-error process. They are asking for the impossible, like providing airport security or anything of a similar scale. If a law is made of this it will serve nothing but annoyance to actual users of said software. There is just no conceivable way anyone could regulate and enforce that law. It's a good idea in general but it shouldn't have an application in legislation, that's like forbidding pigeons to litter monuments -- no offence, but what the...
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything. Sure there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification
  - dhs 18y ago
    Formal verification works for algorithms, but not for interactions.
  - godDLL 18y ago
    Run it on MS Word X, then. Or OOO v3. And draw any meaningful conclusions from that data. Better yet, how do I write reliable software that runs on a buggy processor? What do I use to test that the chip I'm making does what it is supposed to every time for all scenarios? It's programmable, after all. That, I'm sure, you can identify with.
  - ori_b 18y ago
    That proves that it conforms to the specified behavior. It doesn't prove that the specified behavior is correct or useful.
rsynnott 18y ago
Every now and again, a government representative decides that they would like to do something relating to technology, or medicine, or whatever. Whether this something is practical, possible, or legal is largely immaterial. They will bring it up, and it may even get passed (American CDA, Australian internet filtering thing); at that point it will die amongst legal challenges or simple impracticality. Business as usual.
- ubernostrum 18y ago
  Judging from some of the stories which come out of the EU, it seems that bad policies don't die there -- instead they are thoroughly enforced. (see, for example, the endless variations on "this product is the wrong size to meet the EU definition of a strawberry", etc.)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 18y ago
They should put forward computer scientists to refute this, rather than business representatives. Oh well, we can laugh at their ignorance but it's easy to miss overlook the fact that companies in a large fragmented market sometimes gouge consumers for years and falsely shift the blame for high prices onto whatever government happens to be handy. Having worked for some privatized utilities over there, management is often focused on accumulating as much money as possible rather than improving service for the consumer.
10ren 18y ago
This is about risk allocation, the idea being to make the party bear the cost is who in the better position to do something about it. If corporations were liable for defects in their software, they would need insurance to cover claims, and this would be passed on to consumers as higher prices. They would also be more precise in specifying and communicating how the software should be used. They would start using techniques that might not be efficient or clever, and they might be overkill and more expensive, but that were known to work - similar to how civil engineers design bridges that don't fall down. And they'll need teams of lawyers to handle the litigation. Software will cost more in the EU. This focus on security and consumer rights is what happens after the cowboy phase of an industry is over. But as we move into cloud computing, SaaS, and netbooks and smart phones, that age is yet over for us. Probably it will last at least as long as Moore's Law holds.
gustavo_duarte 18y ago
Here's Marcus Ranum on Software Liability: Inviting Cockroaches to the Feast (http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/lawyers/index.html http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/l...)
fauigerzigerk 18y ago
If this proposal passes (which I doubt) I'm going to write a letter to the commissioner, demanding that everyone gets to try washing machines for 60 days and keep a copy of the machine after returning it.
dexen 18y ago
If you are an open-source developer, you could write in license or documentation, `This software does whatever its source code states it does'. Joe the Average User don't need to to read through code himself; there are enough geeks on his friendlist to have this covered. In spite of reeking of RTFM-ness, this approach actually is about the only honest; all other ways of documenting are simplifications, approximation and literally shuffling dirt under the rag by assuming nonexistence of bugs. However, due to to exceptionally high complexity, and hard to predict interactions between various software and hardware components of system, you need to put strong disclaimers in place: `Unless there are faults in compiler, libraries, the underlying OS your hardware' makes any responsibility very diluted and hard to prove at best. And let's not forget about the -- very uncommon, but occurring nonetheless -- random flips of bits in memory, which may bring the system down or silently corrupt code or data in unreproducible ways, regardless of software and hardware quality. Only actual cure for software reliability is to use simpler systems, made up of loosely coupled components, where failure of one doesn't affect others, and it's easy to re-start from previous step. It's the big, opaque, monolithic, all-encompassing application or systems that bomb and trash your data that are the most problematic. Outlaw those.
elecengin 18y ago
As an electrical engineering grad, I have thought about the option of becoming a Professional Engineer. The idea behind the PE certification is professional responsibility - I see very little wrong with requiring that an engineer stands behind their work. Unfortunately, software does have the formal verification problems discussed above, so there may have to be modifications made to how this responsibility is handled. At the same time, I find it very troubling that software engineers who produce shoddy products - bad security, unsafe control system code - are not held responsible. If nobody takes responsibility to "sign off" on a design, who is the one that is going to spend the time necessary to verify its function to the proper degree it deserves?

34 points by mdasen 18y ago

gills 18y ago

I guess the EU won't be using a whole heck of a lot of software then, will they?

marcusbooster 18y ago

As soon as they can guarantee all government services will work.

joubert 18y ago
Maybe there's a build dependency between govt. services and software and sometimes it breaks?

jackowayed 18y ago

This is almost sort of reasonable, until >According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software. So I'm now liable for that project I wrote in one night for myself that I released under the MIT License if anyone from the EU finds it, uses it, and runs into some security hole? That's going lead to a whole new brand of licenses that say, "Anyone may use this, unless you're in the EU, in which case I can't handle the liability. Sorry, your parliament sucks." In fact, I would argue that this law would void open source licenses in the EU anyway. From the MIT License: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Doesn't that imply that the software can't be used anywhere where a warranty is mandatory? The license states that there's no warranty, so you're violating the license by having a required warranty.

paulgb 18y ago
IANAL, but it looks like this only covers commercial transactions. I'm guessing it applies to things like Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but not free as in beer software.
- thingie 18y ago
  It's about consumers rights, where consumer is: (quote) any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession;
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulgb 18y ago
    I can't tell whether that would include a "consumer" of free-as-in-beer software. After reading the link you posted above, it seems that a money-back guarantee would comply with the regulation. That should be easy enough for someone writing free-as-in-beer software to offer :).
thingie 18y ago
Well, that's what the BSA director said. The article says almost nothing about the actual proposal. So we have to read it at EC pages here (link is not included in the article, of course). http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm It's in this PDF: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2008_0614_F_EN_PROPOSITION_DE_DIRECTIVE.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/COMM_PDF_COM_2008_..., page 20. Well, I'm not really sure what does it mean.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
dxjones 18y ago
The govt could go after a software vendor that knowingly sold their "NO WARRANTY" software in a jurisdiction where a "WARRANTY IS MANDATORY". Legislators don't like it when companies try to "undo" or "go around" their legislation.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

pmjordan 18y ago
Cars do tend to come with a guarantee of some kind, and I'm pretty sure EU consumer protection laws do extend to them. That doesn't extend indefinitely, of course, but this article says nothing about the duration of liability.

pmjordan 18y ago

Although I'm certainly not sold on this idea [1], I find it amusing that the BSA representative is against it; after all, one of Microsoft's main arguments against F/OSS is that there's nobody liable for its correct function. Maybe because the EU laws covering warranties only apply to consumers, not businesses, and Microsoft would have to offer consumer-level customer support of some kind as part of the license. (as far as I know you currently have to pay per issue for support unless you have some kind of contract with MS) [1] I don't see how someone writing open source software in his or her spare time in any way deserves to be liable for malfunction, for example; another worry is the amount of ambiguity involved at all stages, from "intended use" to the definition of "efficacy and security", along with the technical complexity and explosion of possible combinations of software on the average computer

gdee 18y ago
Oh, that's just one part of the inconsistency shown in the BSA quotes. "Digital content is not a tangible good and should not be subject to the same liability rules as toasters" is also interesting seeing how in regards to [intellectual] property they very much push the opposite stance. "extending consumer regulation to software could lead to less interoperability between software products" is just shameless seeing how the EC had to force some (much fought against) interoperability down some of the bigger memberst of the BSA.

axod 18y ago

The EU needs disbanding :( Complete waste of money. This is just another example of them making up work for themselves to do to justify their existence. Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this. It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants.

zcrar70 18y ago
Only someone with no clue about programming would suggest something like this. It's very worrying that unelected 'officials' being paid by us can try to pass laws that no one wants. Unfortunately, that type of thing happens all over the world, not just in the EU parliament. I don't think that disbanding the EU would resolve the problem of politicians making decisions about things they have little to no understanding of.
- axod 18y ago
  True, but at least without the EU, the UK would be free again to govern itself unhindered, with its own elected politicians.
  - weavejester 18y ago
    I don't think our politicians are any better, really. Local politicians make equally bone-headed moves, such as the UK's DNA retention schemes, or France's 3-strikes rule. In these cases, the EU has actually been the one opposing political idiocy. It's also worth noting that most dumb ideas from the EU (including this one) come from the unelected European Commission. The EU parliament, whilst far from perfect, doesn't seem to be quite so stupid, and unlike the EC, the EU parliament is made up of elected MEPs. I'd be in full favour of getting rid of the EC, but the EU has been a very powerful economic equalizer in Europe, which in the long term is probably a good thing for all European countries. It's also a force that discourages local politicians from being dumber than average, so schemes like punishing people outside the judicial system, or keeping the DNA of innocent people tend to be resisted by most MEPs. At least, that's been my experience with the EU. Feel free to come up with counterexamples :)

dgallagher 18y ago

There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe. Bureaucratic laws like this stifle innovation rather than promote it. How about we make the EU politicians and lawmakers liable for the laws they pass? If a law they make happens to harm the economy in any way, they'll have to cover any such losses out-of-pocket.

axod 18y ago
This isn't a law. It's a bizarre, stupid suggestion. >> "There's a reason why most entrepreneurial endeavors start in the United States and not in Europe" I'd like to see your data for that one. I really don't think it's due to bureaucracy. Starting up in the UK at least is ridiculously simple, and cheap - £25 will get you a Ltd company.
- gdee 18y ago
  The second paragraph though makes a great point.
- dgallagher 18y ago
  Good question. Note by "entrepreneurial endeavors" I meant start-ups, and not mom/pop "home businesses." Companies which plan to scale to a reasonable size (20-1000+ employees), essentially. I've come to that perception from economic classes I took in college, and from general observation of start-ups. This is a good article which elaborates on entrepreneurial differences between the U.S. and Europe, citing economic, government, and social differences, among other things: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216037 http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?sto... Noteworthy quote: "And far fewer start-ups in those countries become big businesses. Janez Potocnik, the EU commissioner for science and research, points out that only 5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%." It's not that doing a start-up in Europe means you're doomed. There's just less of them which make it big. Also, "Europe" encompasses a bunch of different nations with different attitudes and laws. The U.K. is much different than Finland, or Denmark, etc... So bunching them all together as I did isn't entirely fair. If you look at one of the charts in the article, Denmark/Sweden/Finland all in-line with the U.S. when it comes to venture capital. If you look at Europe as a whole at the bottom of the chart, averaging all nations together, you see a much different picture.

andr 18y ago

This was proposed by Meglena Kuneva, the consumer protection comissioner for the EU. I attended a talk she gave in Harvard. While she seems dedicated to her work she often blames companies for consumers' lack of judgment. For example, she blamed Apple for corrupting the youth with iPods.

godDLL 18y ago

There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything. It all depends on the context in which the code is being used. Building software is a trial-and-error process, and building large pieces of software is a large trial-and-error process. They are asking for the impossible, like providing airport security or anything of a similar scale. If a law is made of this it will serve nothing but annoyance to actual users of said software. There is just no conceivable way anyone could regulate and enforce that law. It's a good idea in general but it shouldn't have an application in legislation, that's like forbidding pigeons to litter monuments -- no offence, but what the...

yummyfajitas 18y ago
There is no mathematically rigorous way of proving that any given piece of code does or doesn't do anything. Sure there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification
- dhs 18y ago
  Formal verification works for algorithms, but not for interactions.
- godDLL 18y ago
  Run it on MS Word X, then. Or OOO v3. And draw any meaningful conclusions from that data. Better yet, how do I write reliable software that runs on a buggy processor? What do I use to test that the chip I'm making does what it is supposed to every time for all scenarios? It's programmable, after all. That, I'm sure, you can identify with.
- ori_b 18y ago
  That proves that it conforms to the specified behavior. It doesn't prove that the specified behavior is correct or useful.

rsynnott 18y ago

Every now and again, a government representative decides that they would like to do something relating to technology, or medicine, or whatever. Whether this something is practical, possible, or legal is largely immaterial. They will bring it up, and it may even get passed (American CDA, Australian internet filtering thing); at that point it will die amongst legal challenges or simple impracticality. Business as usual.

ubernostrum 18y ago
Judging from some of the stories which come out of the EU, it seems that bad policies don't die there -- instead they are thoroughly enforced. (see, for example, the endless variations on "this product is the wrong size to meet the EU definition of a strawberry", etc.)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 18y ago

They should put forward computer scientists to refute this, rather than business representatives. Oh well, we can laugh at their ignorance but it's easy to miss overlook the fact that companies in a large fragmented market sometimes gouge consumers for years and falsely shift the blame for high prices onto whatever government happens to be handy. Having worked for some privatized utilities over there, management is often focused on accumulating as much money as possible rather than improving service for the consumer.

10ren 18y ago

This is about risk allocation, the idea being to make the party bear the cost is who in the better position to do something about it. If corporations were liable for defects in their software, they would need insurance to cover claims, and this would be passed on to consumers as higher prices. They would also be more precise in specifying and communicating how the software should be used. They would start using techniques that might not be efficient or clever, and they might be overkill and more expensive, but that were known to work - similar to how civil engineers design bridges that don't fall down. And they'll need teams of lawyers to handle the litigation. Software will cost more in the EU. This focus on security and consumer rights is what happens after the cowboy phase of an industry is over. But as we move into cloud computing, SaaS, and netbooks and smart phones, that age is yet over for us. Probably it will last at least as long as Moore's Law holds.

gustavo_duarte 18y ago

Here's Marcus Ranum on Software Liability: Inviting Cockroaches to the Feast (http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/lawyers/index.html http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/l...)

fauigerzigerk 18y ago

If this proposal passes (which I doubt) I'm going to write a letter to the commissioner, demanding that everyone gets to try washing machines for 60 days and keep a copy of the machine after returning it.

dexen 18y ago

If you are an open-source developer, you could write in license or documentation, `This software does whatever its source code states it does'. Joe the Average User don't need to to read through code himself; there are enough geeks on his friendlist to have this covered. In spite of reeking of RTFM-ness, this approach actually is about the only honest; all other ways of documenting are simplifications, approximation and literally shuffling dirt under the rag by assuming nonexistence of bugs. However, due to to exceptionally high complexity, and hard to predict interactions between various software and hardware components of system, you need to put strong disclaimers in place: `Unless there are faults in compiler, libraries, the underlying OS your hardware' makes any responsibility very diluted and hard to prove at best. And let's not forget about the -- very uncommon, but occurring nonetheless -- random flips of bits in memory, which may bring the system down or silently corrupt code or data in unreproducible ways, regardless of software and hardware quality. Only actual cure for software reliability is to use simpler systems, made up of loosely coupled components, where failure of one doesn't affect others, and it's easy to re-start from previous step. It's the big, opaque, monolithic, all-encompassing application or systems that bomb and trash your data that are the most problematic. Outlaw those.

elecengin 18y ago

As an electrical engineering grad, I have thought about the option of becoming a Professional Engineer. The idea behind the PE certification is professional responsibility - I see very little wrong with requiring that an engineer stands behind their work. Unfortunately, software does have the formal verification problems discussed above, so there may have to be modifications made to how this responsibility is handled. At the same time, I find it very troubling that software engineers who produce shoddy products - bad security, unsafe control system code - are not held responsible. If nobody takes responsibility to "sign off" on a design, who is the one that is going to spend the time necessary to verify its function to the proper degree it deserves?