Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Posted Jan 18, 2007 21:43 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796)Parent article: Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Who would have thought 15 years ago open source software would be
addressed in the House of Lords or a kernel maintainer would be there to do the
speaking..... this is a good thing.
Posted Jan 22, 2007 22:15 UTC (Mon)
by LowWeeklyNoise (guest, #39498)
[Link] (1 responses)
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
The argument that free software developers are liable for their software is nothing more than a load of FUD in the hope that people stop sharing code out of fear.
Of course I would not be suprised if some professional lobbyist have managed to get this on the agenda.
As read from the article with regard to free software development:
Cox misses an important point, free software developers are never liable to begin with, and is only spreading the confusion.
Posted Jan 23, 2007 2:13 UTC (Tue)
by malor (guest, #2973)
[Link]
The clause denying responsibility doesn't mean jack if it's superseded by law.
Here's an excerpt from the GPL, for those that don't already know ;)Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
"Cox said that there was a question of how liability would move from the initial developers to the companies."
They're not liable NOW, but they could be. Governments are mulling making it illegal to sell or give away code without taking responsibility for any bugs it might have. Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)