Slashdot Mirror
Free Software at Risk Under Lemon law
mpawlo writes: "Newsforge published a piece I wrote on a lemon law for software. That is - what would happen if shrinkwrap limitation of liability clauses would be banned? I think Microsoft and the GNU Project would both suffer."
huge difference (#13146)
by Anonymous Reader on 2002.05.11 13:21
I am not a lawyer (thankfully), but I do know that if I pay for something, and it fails, I am entitled to compensation. If it fails from negligence or designed error, then there can be punitive damages. But let's examine the case of a Linux/BSD web server, running Apache, MySQL, and PostNuke.
To be safe, I download for free a non-commercial Linux such as Debian, or FreeBSD. I might be mistaken, but both are developed by groups of people, and anyone is allowed entry if they are competent enough coders. But a group is not a company. The whole corporation/private/public/IPO thing. I acquire, freely and legally, a copy of their work. They might have benefactors and patrons, but that isn't the same as employers.
So I download Apache, MySQL, and PostNuke. All fall under the same category. Maybe MySQL doesn't, then just replace MySQL/PostNuke with Perl/DBI.
So now a huge bug develops, a hole so large, it had to be coded in Redmond. I lose all my data, my competitors get my secrets, and I'm on unemployment line next to Enron execs. Who do I have to blame?
Let's see, someone or some people worked on a project that was supposed to do some particular task. They made it freely available, source and all, so that others might work on it as well. They made no claims about it's security, stability, etc. Others may have, but they did not misrepresent the software in any way.
I did not contribute, but I saw an opportunity to use their work. So I did. They received nothing from me, not money, not anything. And, the whole time, the company kept no secrets about the product, and in fact, by making the source available, does just the opposite.
There was no intent to decieve, nor any misrepresentation. By not purchasing the product nor any sort of service contract, I entered into no agreement with the group.
Going in, I understand the risks. I assume the responsibility if problems occur. This is 180 degrees different from microsoft, since they make plenty of claims, and since there is a legal agreement between a company and microsoft, and because they are marketing a product with known liabilities.
No, free/open source software doesn't stand to be shut down, rather it stands to gain tremendously. The problem is for companies like RedHat which sell and service open source software. So, form the commercial standpoint, it hurts linux companies who don't have billions to spend on lawyers, like er um, microsoft. But it doesn;t hurt open source software.
rob mandel
^^^----- Posted anonymously here
While I don't favor turning the sharks loose on software companies, it is obvious there NEEDS to be some sort of liability and responsibility for bugs.
Some sort of "lemon law" that would REQUIRE the publisher to either correct bugs, and distribute patches for free, or else refund the purchase price IS needed.
What needs to stop is companies like MS being able to leave gaping holes in their products, then correct some of them, and releasing them as "upgrades", ala Windows 98 SE and ME... Those were not really "new" OS's, they were service releases that increased the stability of `98...
In all honesty, the commercial software publishers have brought this on themselves. Sure, MS distributes patches for free for the worst holes (ala, the ones that make Code Red, Nimda, and Klez work), but the fact is, they let their products LEAVE the house with those bugs in the first place.
I see bad consequences for free software out of this, created for it by the closed source companies. Perhaps there can be an exception written in for companies that release source, and in effect, have industry wide peer review of their code.
Eventually, if such a law isn't passed, sooner or later the sharks are going to class action sue and crack away ALL such limitations in the EULA's.
There is too much money and lost productivity happening right now due to software defects.
What we need is a defined list of responsibilities, passed into law, that can't be EULA'ed away.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Even assuming that such a "lemon law" could be passed (which is, to my mind, a dubious proposition in and of itself), it wouldn't affect Free/Open Source Software (or even proprietary freeware) at all because there's no contract between the the author/distributor of the software and the user.
While IANAL, I did consult one about this once - when you give something away, you have no obligation to the recipient. Specifically, the recipient can't sue you if the product is defective in some manner.
... their lightplane industry before inventing any new product liability laws.
It got so that anyone who flew whilst drunk and crashed a plane that he hadn't maintained for years could sue the manufacturer for many millions with a fair chance of winning. And even if the manufacturer won their legal costs would wipe out the profit on many aircraft. So basically the US lightplane industry closed down. (It has since started up again, as a shadow of its former self, following some law changes.)
OK, that didn't affect all that many people. Closing down the software industry would be a different game altogether.
Most open source software seems to be in the perpetual beta state anyway, but if a lemon-law were to pass, maybe the commercial vendors would move toward this as well. Never releasing a "finished" version, just alphas, pre betas, betas, preview editions, release candidates, etc, etc, etc.
If this were to happen, it might actaully help the public, forcing the commercial vendors into a system where they actaully have to admit that thier product is never finished. Maybe then the public would stop shelling out money every time the latest edition comes out, lining the pockets of Gates and company.
Why couldn't one limit the maximum liability to, say, 10 times the license / distribution price? So a typical private MS customer might claim some thousand dollars while a company or school (with a single contract covering thousands of machines) could start multi-million dollar lawsuits. Obviously, the risk for authors of free software is then still zero. For linux distributors, the liability might be limited to the non-free software parts (like yast in SuSE) and to the editing process (identification of alpha/beta/production grade software). In any case, big money will only be at stake for companies which make big money.
The only reason I mention the Japanese is the car manufacturing example I used. (Did you look at the link I provided?) The principles of quality control are universal and were actually imported by the United States: The quality movement in Japan began in 1946 with the U.S. Occupation
Now, why would Japanese companies like Toyota (which started basically in someones garage) be able to take market share from companies like Ford (who began mass production)? Because they actually applied the quality control principles. Ford, &c., were selling an inferior product, which the "lemon laws" were meant to protect consumers against.
The same is true for software. Maybe we'll get some "lemon software" protection, but the only thing that's really going to get compaies like Microsoft to start making reliable software is real competition.
I think any liability laws would unfairly punish smaller companies.
Some people are in favour of Lemon Laws specifically because they dislike Microsoft and think that Microsoft software is insecure. This is stupid and shortsighted.
Deal with Microsoft's monopoly abuses seperately. Monopolies come and go but bad legislation is forever.
Create laws that arm consumers with security information. Perhaps a grading scheme where software that doesn't connect to the internet is given a A rating. If it is a client then it gets a B rating. If it is a server it starts at C then for every three exploits within the last year the rating increments by one.
After you have informed the consumer you can let the market decide. If they still use software with a G rating then that's their own problem.
Something that really bugs me is the comment that this lemon law could kill "OpenSource and Free Software" alltogether. In the case you guys from the US haven't noticed: There are other countries with other laws.
Of course here in Germany a vendor or producer is liable for what he sells, too. But this liability has limitations! In Germany you CANNOT sue McDonald's because you failed to notice that coffee may be hot and McDonald's hasn't provided you with that information! You CANNOT sue a toy company for selling Superman capes without providing a warning that those capes won't give you the ability to fly! And even if you can sue a company for liability (i.e. because they failed to give notice about poisons or side-effects in their products), you won't be rich!
German jurisdiction mostly follows the customs and the common sense. That means: if you pay 1000 Euro for product A it is NOT regarded in the same way as product B which you got for free.
Besides: do you really think that OpenSource and Free Software are dead the same moment the US leaves the building?
-- Beware the Jabberwock, my son!