Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem [LWN.net]

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 10:27 UTC (Tue) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467)
In reply to: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem by dvrabel
Parent article: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

The structural engineer in your example is earning a living by designing bridges. Consider if a hobbyist drew up a bridge completely on their own free time and then published the result "AS IS". Who is going to be liable when that bridge falls after being constructed? I'd love to see an argumentation that makes the hobbyist "designer" liable.

IMHO, the license stated the software was provided "AS IS" and if you still put it in your product and it blows up due to a bug in the code you pulled, it is you who is liable for the mess, not the person who made the mistake in the code. They didn't force you to pull the code that says it comes without any guarantees. You could have written your own, for example :)

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 11:55 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link] (2 responses)

Pretty certain in a lot of jurisdictions they will take down the bridge if you open it for the general public.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 12:40 UTC (Tue) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link] (1 responses)

I was thinking about a situation when the plans for the bridge are picked up by a party completely unrelated to the hobbyist engineer, perhaps even without their knowledge at all. Imagine if someone decided to build that bridge and it'd have passed through the whole process with all the checks and get built. That is IMHO in the same league as FOSS + "AS IS" in the licences. I'd say there is a hard boundary and the problem has started when the free plans were picked up to build an actual product that was monetized, rather than the moment when the plans with the flaw were published free of charge (and "AS IS").

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 12:45 UTC (Tue) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

To extend that line of thing a little further: we should IMHO be warning hobbyist developers about the looming support contracts boom, not the "looming developer liability problem", so that they don't get burned by conditions too unfavorable to them. Profit-makers are going to try to shift the blame in the cheapest ways they can. So contracting that original enthusiast and shifting the blame to them is a no brainer. IMHO there should be a place where turn to for legal support/advice when that comes.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 21:53 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

> Who is going to be liable when that bridge falls after being constructed?

For the bridge to be constructed, a licensed civil engineer has to sign off on the design, usually in exchange for a hefty sum of money. And they would be responsible if it falls. It fits perfectly into the proposed European framework.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 22:05 UTC (Tue) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link] (1 responses)

Awesome observation. Also pretty relevant in how is the framework going to be interpreted across the European courts on various levels. I think reaching for similar examples would be exactly what would our courts do here. Some other, way more far-reaching, legislation would have to come into existence - explicitly putting "random bystanders" on the hook - in way more industries than just IT, for FOSS to be affected as much as some are trying to scare us it will be.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 13, 2023 10:29 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

As I said above, the ENTIRE European consumer rights edifice is built on the premise that the SELLER is responsible to their CUSTOMER.

On that basis, J Random Developer of Nebraska does not have any CUSTOMERs.

(Of course, it's more complicated in that it's meant to catch people who *pretend* not to have customers, but for J Random, it's pretty clear cut.)

Cheers,
Wol