Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Posted Jan 18, 2007 22:41 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)Parent article: Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
I also very much agree with Alan's arguments. On the hand I wish that users would not be that tolerant to bugs and would not accept software that crashes. If people refuse to buy products that crashes, more proprietary software vendors would open they code just for the sake of extra eyes.
Posted Jan 19, 2007 0:06 UTC (Fri)
by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 19, 2007 8:53 UTC (Fri)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 19, 2007 9:15 UTC (Fri)
by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)
[Link]
In fact I have no problems with a law that states that users can get their money back for buggy software that does not meat the stated quality level while continuing to use it.
Still, in the state of Nevada you--as an individual medical doctor--might expect to pay upwards of $500,000/year for insurance. On the flip side, some surgeries which could take 6 months to schedule in British Columbia (because of the waiting lines and lack of specialists), can be done within 6 days in Nevada. Not sure what the implications are; likely none which are straight-forward.Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
But how would people know, that a software crashes, before they have bought it and experienced those crashes?Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)
Users can simply refuse to pay for software where the vendor rejects any liability. Then if software crashes or works badly the user can require the vendor to address the bugs. Linux guru argues against security liability (ZDNet UK)