in reply to Re: OT: Software & Liability
in thread OT: Software & Liability

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by Elian (Parson) on May 20, 2002 at 19:02 UTC
    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.