in reply to OT: Software & Liability

Well, the difference as I see it is that there isn't any open source cars being made, nor any closed-source freeware cars or even shared source cars. That I know of.

So, the liability should perhaps be placed on those that actually make money on promising something will work. If I give you my car for free, you don't have much to come with if you complain that it breaks down on you on the way to an important meeting - probably not even if I promise it will hold forever. If you pay me for it however...

That way, of course, it would also be allowed to put someone to the wall for not doing a good job installing or maintaining even free products. Lots of open source business is done by doing the work for the customer, while the product is free. I guess it is fair to hold the work done accountable to some degree, if, and only if certain promises were made.

Then, we can always dicsuss if liability for software is really something we want at all - those that got hit hard my Microsoft viruses, and know people that didn't due to running apache or any non-Outlook mail program probably thinks so. I think those people are very upset that they paid lots of money for something that cost them even more money.

In conclusion, I guess I can support that if something costs money, it should have some kind of enforcable warranty - blatant, and/or expensive errors should be possible to get retribution for. However, free "no-warranty" products should not be covered by this. Maybe. It's too tough an issue for this little brain. :)

Still, good luck to anyone trying to convince the legislators there is a difference... *sigh*

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by pdcawley (Hermit) on May 20, 2002 at 18:42 UTC
    So, the liability should perhaps be placed on those that actually make money on promising something will work.
    I think this is the crux of the matter. If I develop a piece of software and release it under an open source license then, when you go to use it you do so at your own risk. You have no contract with me for supply of software because there has been no exchange of consideration. Hell, there's been no offer, no acceptance, there's not even been an invitation to treat.

    Quite how anyone could try to hold me liable when there's no contract is something of a mystery to me.

[reply]
      In the US, at least, there's some minimum amount of liability that you're not allowed to get out of in many cases.

      The act of creation and distribution of something, regardless of its cost, imparts some measure of liability on the creator. You made it and you gave it to someone, or put it somewhere where someone could reasonably take it with your approval, which leaves you responsible in some measure for the performance of the thing. The law sets a minimum amount of liability you can have and, while you can go over that (by claiming that your creation does particular things), you can't go under it.

      This isn't, on the whole, a bad thing. It ensures that the manufacturers of things take at least a minimum amount of care in the production of whatever they make. I'm pretty sure that doing due dilligence and making what would be considered the best reasonable effort will limit your liability, but that's something to check with a lawyer about.

[reply]
Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by Rex(Wrecks) (Curate) on May 20, 2002 at 18:14 UTC
    There are actually "shared source" cars. New Jaguars have standard Ford parts (source), Lexus and Toyota share many of the same parts. Going even further, look at Disk-Brakes as a module, nearly every car built uses that module, they may have tweaked the module for thier own uses, but essentially most of the "source" is the same. Many vehicles also use the same licenced patents, more shared "source" :)

    "Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!
[reply]
      Although this may be entirely irrelevant;
      Lexus and Toyota are the same company, so I don't know if that example counts.
      Lexus/Toyota/Daihatsu would be the Japanese equivalent of Lincoln/Ford/Mercury.

      JP,
      -- Alexander Widdlemouse undid his bellybutton and his bum dropped off --

[reply]

In Section Meditations