Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

Posted Mar 5, 2021 21:43 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (guest, #65743)
In reply to: Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with by pizza
Parent article: Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

> "Held accountable" how, exactly, and to what extent? Criminal liability resulting in jail time or fines? Or some sort of civil liability? Either way, where does this "accountability" end?

Some form of liability. The real name policy ( like google was advocating for ) are designed and implemented to go after a person(s) not a program(s).

The vehicle example I gave it's not an unlikely to happen in a F/OSS world [1].

I'm pretty sure further down the line we will see some examples in court, that show how far the term "coding mistake" can be stretched and I have no idea what exactly role he played within VW but initially VW blamed a "rogue" team of engineer within the company but obviously the entire developer team who wrote the code should have gone to jail it's not like they did not know it was unethical and illegal. All of the persons involved could have said no I wont do that, I quit or get someone else to do it etc. it's not like they can hide their heinous act behind some "management" decision.

1. https://www.autoware.org/