Motivation of software professionals
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: When writing html table to div, the data from table is unformatted
Next: multi file download with one click
From: Brian on 12 Feb 2010 17:06 On Feb 12, 3:14 pm, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...(a)huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote: > In comp.lang.java.programmer Brian <c...(a)mailvault.com> wrote: > > > > > That is true in a traditional model of exchanging > > money for a product or service. If you don't pay > > for the good or service, you have no "rights." > > That's quite simply not correct. > Who has successfully sued a Boost developer or Boost as a whole over their open source code? No one has sued Ebenezer Enterprises either. T Brian Wood http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384
From: Brian on 12 Feb 2010 17:21 On Feb 12, 3:36 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 11:42 am, Leif Roar Moldskred > > > > <le...(a)huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote: > > In comp.lang.java.programmer Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > This is what I am getting at, although we need to have > > > Brian's example as a baseline. In this day and age, however, > > > I'm not convinced that a person could even give away a free > > > car (it wouldn't be free in any case, it would still get > > > taxed, and you'd have to transfer title) and be completely > > > off the hook, although 99 times out of 100 I'd agree with > > > Brian that it's not a likely scenario for lawsuits. > > Where Brian's example falls down is that the previous owner of > > the car is, in effect, just a reseller: he isn't likely to > > have manufactured the car or modified it to any degree. > > However, let us assume that he _has_ done modifications to the > > car such as, say, replacing the fuel tank. If he messed up the > > repair and, without realising it, turned the fuel car into a > > potential firebomb, he would be liable for this defect even if > > he gave the car away free of charge. > > He doesn't even have to have done that much. If he knows that > the brakes doen't work, and he lets you drive it, he's legally > responsible. I have no problem with that. Some though believe that if you give away a car and aren't aware of a problem with the car, that you are still liable. I don't think I'm obligated to have a car looked at by a mechanic before giving it away. If it is safe to the best of my knowledge, then I should just tell whoever wants the car about it's history and encourage them to have the car checked out. Brian Wood http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384
From: Arved Sandstrom on 12 Feb 2010 17:22 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-12, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> With software the law is immature. To my way of thinking there are some >> implied obligations that come into effect as soon as a software program >> is published, regardless of price. Despite all the "legal" disclaimers >> to the effect that all the risk is assumed by the user of the free >> software, the fact is that the author would not make the program >> available unless he believed that it worked, and unless he believed that >> it would not cause harm. This is common sense. > > Common sense has the interesting attribute that it is frequently totally > wrong. > > I have published a fair amount of code which I was quite sure had at > least some bugs, but which I believed worked well enough for recreational > use or to entertain. Or which I thought might be interesting to someone > with the time or resources to make it work. Or which I believed worked in > the specific cases I'd had time to test. It sounds like you're saying what I said, which is that publication for an announced purpose - recreational use, proper operation in specific defined cases, as a baseline for future work - is a statement that it is fit for that purpose. If there are no qualifying statements (bug list, READMEs etc), then the implication is that the exposed functionality of the program is considered to work. Either that or the author is so apathetic about his product that he doesn't know about half the defects and can't be bothered to tell anyone about the other half that he does know about. > I do believe that software will not cause harm *unless people do something > stupid with it*. Such as relying on it without validating it. Validating it? That's all well and good if you're writing a program for other developers. It is not something that you can expect average computer users to understand or be capable of doing. >> I don't know if there is a legal principle attached to this concept, but >> if not I figure one will get identified. Simply put, the act of >> publishing _is_ a statement of fitness for use by the author, and to >> attach completely contradictory legal disclaimers to the product is >> somewhat absurd. > > I don't agree. I think it is a reasonable *assumption*, in the lack of > evidence to the contrary, that the publication is a statement of *suspected* > fitness for use. But if someone disclaims that, well, you should assume that > they have a reason to do so. > > Such as, say, knowing damn well that it is at least somewhat buggy. [ SNIP ] It has something to do with the nature of the disclaimer. If someone specifically documents that such-and-such functionality doesn't work, that's cool. I can live with that - that's normal. I have much less tolerance for the blanket disclaimer that essentially states that _nothing_ works, except when it does. Since no developer would actually publish a product where they truly believed that nothing worked, these blanket disclaimers are at odds with reality and legally ought to be null and void. AHS
From: Leif Roar Moldskred on 12 Feb 2010 17:43 In comp.lang.java.programmer Brian <coal(a)mailvault.com> wrote: > On Feb 12, 3:14�pm, Leif Roar Moldskred > <le...(a)huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote: >> In comp.lang.java.programmer Brian <c...(a)mailvault.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > That is true in a traditional model of exchanging >> > money for a product or service. �If you don't pay >> > for the good or service, you have no "rights." >> >> That's quite simply not correct. >> > > Who has successfully sued a Boost developer or Boost > as a whole over their open source code? No one has > sued Ebenezer Enterprises either. T Nobody has successfully convicted me of manslaughter either, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is legal. Can you name any incident of a developer of _commercial_ software having been sued over defects in their software and found liable? On top of my head I can't think of any -- but then I can't think of any cases where manufacturers of chainsaws have been sued and found liable over defects in their products either. That says more about my ignorance of case law than it does of the legal realities. That there is no money changing hands and (usually) no business relationship between developer and user for open source software _does_ curtail the developer's liability, and the language of most open source licenses serves to limit it further. What it doesn't do, however, is to remove _all_ liability. There is a reason why the GPL states that "there is no warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law" and that is that "applicable law" tend to prohibit the ceding of _all_ liability. You can cede a lot, but not everything. -- Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Brian on 12 Feb 2010 17:51
On Feb 12, 4:22 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Seebs wrote: > > On 2010-02-12, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> With software the law is immature. To my way of thinking there are some > >> implied obligations that come into effect as soon as a software program > >> is published, regardless of price. Despite all the "legal" disclaimers > >> to the effect that all the risk is assumed by the user of the free > >> software, the fact is that the author would not make the program > >> available unless he believed that it worked, and unless he believed that > >> it would not cause harm. This is common sense. > > > Common sense has the interesting attribute that it is frequently totally > > wrong. > > > I have published a fair amount of code which I was quite sure had at > > least some bugs, but which I believed worked well enough for recreational > > use or to entertain. Or which I thought might be interesting to someone > > with the time or resources to make it work. Or which I believed worked in > > the specific cases I'd had time to test. > > It sounds like you're saying what I said, which is that publication for > an announced purpose - recreational use, proper operation in specific > defined cases, as a baseline for future work - is a statement that it is > fit for that purpose. If there are no qualifying statements (bug list, > READMEs etc), then the implication is that the exposed functionality of > the program is considered to work. > > Either that or the author is so apathetic about his product that he > doesn't know about half the defects and can't be bothered to tell anyone > about the other half that he does know about. > > > I do believe that software will not cause harm *unless people do something > > stupid with it*. Such as relying on it without validating it. > > Validating it? That's all well and good if you're writing a program for > other developers. It is not something that you can expect average > computer users to understand or be capable of doing. > > >> I don't know if there is a legal principle attached to this concept, but > >> if not I figure one will get identified. Simply put, the act of > >> publishing _is_ a statement of fitness for use by the author, and to > >> attach completely contradictory legal disclaimers to the product is > >> somewhat absurd. > > > I don't agree. I think it is a reasonable *assumption*, in the lack of > > evidence to the contrary, that the publication is a statement of *suspected* > > fitness for use. But if someone disclaims that, well, you should assume that > > they have a reason to do so. > > > Such as, say, knowing damn well that it is at least somewhat buggy. > > [ SNIP ] > > It has something to do with the nature of the disclaimer. If someone > specifically documents that such-and-such functionality doesn't work, > that's cool. I can live with that - that's normal. I have much less > tolerance for the blanket disclaimer that essentially states that > _nothing_ works, except when it does. Since no developer would actually > publish a product where they truly believed that nothing worked, these > blanket disclaimers are at odds with reality and legally ought to be > null and void. > On the other hand you can only report that it works fine here. I publish based on that and have some knowledge of what other work environments are like. Therefore I believe that what works here will often work there. However, since I have little to no control over those other environments, it is impossible to say for sure what will or won't work. Context/ Environment is everything and I'm not G-d. I don't bother with those blanket disclaimers. I think it goes without saying when something is a freebie. Brian Wood http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384 |