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

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 14:13 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem by kleptog
Parent article: Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

> The Uniform Commercial Code in the US has always required "merchantability" and cannot be disclaimed.

But if you're not involved in commerce, it doesn't apply. (Or I presume it doesn't.)

"Merchantability" means "fit to be sold". And if you're not selling it, where's the problem?

(Yes, you might be trying to get around the law, and deserve to be slammed, but you might not, too ...)

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 15:10 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (4 responses)

> "Merchantability" means "fit to be sold". And if you're not selling it, where's the problem?

The problem is that the [current draft] CRA says that it will apply to "Digital elements" whether or not they are sold or provided free of charge.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 15:20 UTC (Tue) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link] (3 responses)

No, it does not. It applies to products on the market. And that is not a problem, because nobody here who is not running a business needs to care about the distinction, because it doesn't apply.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 15:45 UTC (Tue) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (2 responses)

Except that I *am* running a business!

And before I had a legal business registered, I was still "accepting recurring compensation" from EU-based entities for support/bugfix activities. AKA the primary mechanism that "hobby" F/OSS writers use to offset their F/OSS operational costs.

My business has booked a whopping $180 in revenue from European clients in the past 12 months. That's still enough to trigger the full weight of the (draft) CRA's compliance, reporting, and liability provisions, because the threshold is anything more than zero, and my liability extends to all possible users of my software, not just the ones for whom I have a business relationship.

You (and they) say this sort of outcome is not their intent. That's great! But good intentions are, while necessary, are no guarantee of a good outcome.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 20:42 UTC (Tue) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

> And before I had a legal business registered, I was still "accepting recurring compensation" from EU-based entities for support/bugfix activities. AKA the primary mechanism that "hobby" F/OSS writers use to offset their F/OSS operational costs.

Sounds to me like you're providing a bugfixing service, not selling a product. So I don't see how product liability is relevant in you're case. The Digital Services Act might be relevant though.

Bottomley: Solving the Looming Developer Liability Problem

Posted Dec 12, 2023 23:32 UTC (Tue) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

Good. If you sell software on the market, then you need to be held responsible for it to your customers. Just like if you were selling medicines, or food, or industrial equipment, or anything else for that matter.