Free pass to bankrupt contributors

Posted Feb 19, 2023 23:52 UTC (Sun) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
In reply to: Free pass to bankrupt contributors by Wol
Parent article: Free software and fiduciary duty

> In other words, it's not safe to participate in life ... might as well find a desert island and hope a lawyer doesn't end up there too.

When we publish free software we do so under licenses that have an extremely broad and forceful disclaimer against precisely this kind of liability specifically because work on free software is uncompensated and it would be both irrational and immoral to expose your family to ruin simply because you decided to engage in a public spirited and essentially charitable activity.

Unlike work done for employment there aren't revenues to cover random litigation as a cost of business-- working on free software isn't a necessary part of life. There is a simple cost benefit analysis: If publishing free software is an open invitation to bankrupt you with facially spurious litigation then you shouldn't do it.

> And unlike America, it's probable that the judge will say "I think the plaintiff will lose at trial, let's ask a jury about this before we go any further".

Absolutely not. There is no avenue to involve a jury in this process. Getting the case dismissed on a summary basis was the avenue available to potentially discharge the case without racking up millions in costs.

> Plus, if the defendants put into court all this stuff where he's been saying his aim is to bankrupt the defendants, he might find this sinks his case.

We did. So far, they haven't cared.

Free pass to bankrupt contributors

Posted Feb 20, 2023 0:51 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> When we publish free software we do so under licenses that have an extremely broad and forceful disclaimer against precisely this kind of liability specifically because work on free software is uncompensated and it would be both irrational and immoral to expose your family to ruin simply because you decided to engage in a public spirited and essentially charitable activity.

Even $bigcorps are in the same boat here; Why release anything at all under an F/OSS license when your potential costs can be far in excess of your potential revenues?

Free pass to bankrupt contributors

Posted Feb 20, 2023 1:00 UTC (Mon) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]

You're not wrong about the incentives there, but individual participants have an additional 0/1 problem. A common answer I've seen in threads on the subject is along the lines of "Whats the big deal, he's sure to lose at trial" -- but that doesn't fly if you'll be bankrupt and forced to default before you get that far... this boundary condition doesn't apply to $bigcorp, only the overall cost/benefit analysis.

Free pass to bankrupt contributors

Posted Feb 20, 2023 12:26 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> > And unlike America, it's probable that the judge will say "I think the plaintiff will lose at trial, let's ask a jury about this before we go any further".

> Absolutely not. There is no avenue to involve a jury in this process. Getting the case dismissed on a summary basis was the avenue available to potentially discharge the case without racking up millions in costs.

But this is the UK. It's not like America where you have to line up all your ducks at once. The Judge can call for a trial on whether the plaintiff owns the bitcoins in question. And if he thinks the jury will find for the defendants on the facts in summary judgement he probably will.

Yes it will run up costs, but on nowhere near the scale it would in America.

Unfortunately bullies will be bullies, and the job of the Judge is not take sides before considering the evidence. Given what's in front of him, he's probably even now trying to work out how to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

Cheers,
Wol