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

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 11:48 UTC (Tue) by james (guest, #1325)
In reply to: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem by coriordan
Parent article: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

If you want examples of laws over-riding clear terms in software licenses, look at Britain's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

296A Avoidance of certain terms.
(1) Where a person has the use of a computer program under an agreement, any term or condition in the agreement shall be void in so far as it purports to prohibit or restrict—
(a) the making of any back up copy of the program which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of the agreed use;
(b) where the conditions in section 50B(2) are met, the decompiling of the program; or
(c) the observing, studying or testing of the functioning of the program in accordance with section 50BA.

Sections 50A, 50B and 50BA make it clear that these things don't breach copyright, either.

(Extra terms apply: this is not legal advice; consult a real lawyer before relying on any of this!)

to post comments

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 12:19 UTC (Tue) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

To make it more relevant, can you provide an example of a law which is shifting the responsibility of corporations/profit seeking entities to unengaged parties with no skin in the game?

My point is that the hobbyist developers aren't exactly begging the profit-makers to make profit specifically off of their code. The hobbyists mostly couldn't care less about users of their code who in most cases don't even bother contributing back, ever. I'd love to see an example of _this_, because this is the core of the FUD arising from the newest legislative "innovation" attempt in the EU. Shifting the blame for mishaps in commercial product to someone who is not in the profit chain of suppliers to make that product possible. Any example of that?

Being in the chain "by random chance" without any profit or even any engagement at all IMHO will always mean the shift-blaming attempts will turn out unsuccessful. The judicial power would have to get hijacked by the profit seeking entities ~completely for this to happen - and when that happens, we've got bigger problems, than a random FOSS contributor getting blamed for something they had no influence over.