in reply to OT: Software & Liability

Regarding the open source vs. commercial closed-source question, I think the difference is important when judging risks associated with the use of the software in question. New legislation (as opposed to existing laws regarding false advertising and liability) should take this into account.

If a vendor sells you a black box that they say will turn bananas into monkey dung, then all you have is their word on this.

If you can look inside the box and see that there's a monkey inside waiting to be fed a banana, well then you have a reasonable expectation that the box will do what you've been told, without ever having to risk a banana.

Open source palpably changes risk assesments.

Matt

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: OT: Software & Liability
by cjf (Parson) on May 20, 2002 at 22:58 UTC
    I think the difference is important when judging risks associated with the use of the software in question.

    I agree, but one thing you have to keep in mind is that many businesess/individuals will not have the time and/or expertise to ensure the quality of the software. An open source vendor who makes obviously false claims should be held just as liable as a closed-source software company.

[reply]
      Yes, this is true. This is what should drive the market for 3rd party auditing and certification. Open source software makes such audits easier, more reliable, and most importantly, verifiable.

      Matt

[reply]

In Section Meditations