3 ms·

The first line on ML: "Magic Lantern is a free firmware addon for Canon EOS DSLR cameras that adds a host of features to assist photographers and videographers.

The first line on ML: "Magic Lantern is a free firmware addon for Canon EOS DSLR cameras that adds a host of features to assist photographers and videographers." Read it again: it is free. If you really need QoS, pay someone to develop and code review the firmware. I am not being a troll, some people just have so much self-entitlement on something that is free.

gone35 12y ago
Well; it really depends on your jurisdiction, but you should know that there is such a thing as consumer protection and tort liability --yes, even for things you get for free, like FOSS. See for instance [1,2]. Also, in the specific case of FOSS, this kind of jackass-ery might soon come to an end anyway if/when the EU and UK follows through with their (relatively) recent moves to introduce stronger software liability provisions (eg [3]). [1] http://www.ifross.org/en/what-legal-standard-liability-and-warranty-germany http://www.ifross.org/en/what-legal-standard-liability-and-w... [2] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/21st_century_issues/21st_century_law/open_source_legal_01.htm#D.%20TORT%20LIABILITYclayton http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/21st_cen... [3] http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/workspace/analysts-warn-[3] http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/workspace/analysts-warn-[3] vendors-on-software-liability-7284
- happywolf 11y ago
  All these articles only mentioned the possibility of liability. [1] most probably translated from German, and I cannot really understand what the translated text means, so I have no comment. [2]: It doesn't say for sure one will be liable "it is difficult to determine with any certainty: (1) whether open source software licenses will be enforceable, (2) whether open source software copyright will be valid, or (3) whether open source software licenses will subject developers to tort liability." [3] is more on vendor, which quite specifically on transaction that carries monetary value. It is debatable if one still be regarded as vendor even if he doesn't sell stuff. I will give the article benefit of doubt. Truth be told, the first successful litigation basically will turn off most contributors: no one can be sure their codes are totally bug-free. Even if that person totally wants to do good.
bobbytherobot 11y ago
> some people just have so much self-entitlement on something that is free Self-entitlement would be expecting personal customer support. Finding out the firmware is buggy BY DESIGN is reason would seem to be a perfectly good reason to dismiss the firmware.

gone35 12y ago

Well; it really depends on your jurisdiction, but you should know that there is such a thing as consumer protection and tort liability --yes, even for things you get for free, like FOSS. See for instance [1,2]. Also, in the specific case of FOSS, this kind of jackass-ery might soon come to an end anyway if/when the EU and UK follows through with their (relatively) recent moves to introduce stronger software liability provisions (eg [3]). [1] http://www.ifross.org/en/what-legal-standard-liability-and-warranty-germany http://www.ifross.org/en/what-legal-standard-liability-and-w... [2] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/21st_century_issues/21st_century_law/open_source_legal_01.htm#D.%20TORT%20LIABILITYclayton http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/21st_cen... [3] http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/workspace/analysts-warn-[3] http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/workspace/analysts-warn-[3] vendors-on-software-liability-7284

happywolf 11y ago
All these articles only mentioned the possibility of liability. [1] most probably translated from German, and I cannot really understand what the translated text means, so I have no comment. [2]: It doesn't say for sure one will be liable "it is difficult to determine with any certainty: (1) whether open source software licenses will be enforceable, (2) whether open source software copyright will be valid, or (3) whether open source software licenses will subject developers to tort liability." [3] is more on vendor, which quite specifically on transaction that carries monetary value. It is debatable if one still be regarded as vendor even if he doesn't sell stuff. I will give the article benefit of doubt. Truth be told, the first successful litigation basically will turn off most contributors: no one can be sure their codes are totally bug-free. Even if that person totally wants to do good.

bobbytherobot 11y ago

> some people just have so much self-entitlement on something that is free Self-entitlement would be expecting personal customer support. Finding out the firmware is buggy BY DESIGN is reason would seem to be a perfectly good reason to dismiss the firmware.