Slashdot Mirror
Taking On Software Liability - Again
An anonymous reader writes "You may remember an article in which a BBC correspondent wrote an article criticising current software licenses. In answer to the huge discussion that this brought about, he has written another article defending his views. From the article: 'It is possible to make error-free code, or at least to get a lot closer to it than we do at the moment, but it takes time and effort. Doing it will probably mean that commercially-available code is more expensive and cause major problems for free and open source software developers. But I still believe that the current situation is unsustainable, and that we should be working harder to improve the quality of the code out there.'"
There is also a big difference between consumer software like word processors and web browsers, and the massive information systems used internally in large companies.
The companies writing the large systems usually have contracts which mean they are liable for damages, and this increases both the cost and the reliability of the resulting programs.
I must assume he doesn't work with internal apps much.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
There has been a lot of discussion about my call for software liability in a column entitled Whose fault is it anyway?, and it shows that this is an issue which needs some serious attention.
/sarcasm
"it" is an unclear variable reference. Does the pronoun "it" refer to the call for software liabilty or the column itself? Also, the title of the column should be italicized, underlined, or capitalized for clarity. Finally, the phrase "a lot" is depreciated.
There is also a big difference between consumer software like word processors and web browsers, and the massive information systems used internally in large companies.
Syntax error. No comma is needed after "browsers".
The companies writing the large systems usually have contracts which mean they are liable for damages, and this increases both the cost and the reliability of the resulting programs.
Syntax error: a comma should proceed a "which" as discussed in rule 11.
Many readers commented on the difference between free/open source software and commercial software when it comes to guarantees, and criticised my use of the licence for the Firefox browser as an example.
Syntax error: no comma is needed after guarantees.
something that is paid for
Better: "something for which one pays"
But liability for consequential damage is different from guarantees of proper working.
Awk. Please unobfuscate this sentence.
Cars are a good example here. Motor vehicles have to be safe, and there are rules and regulations governing their development and production which, by and large, keep the roads safe from exploding cars. It does not stop accidents caused by driver error or poor maintenance, but it does make us safer.
Again, confusing pronoun reference. The "it" in the second sentence seems to refer to "rules and regulations". If this was the intent, please correct to "they" as this could cause unexpected results.
And if a group of people build their own cars then they have to follow those same rules in order to be allowed to use public roads, even if they gave their cars away.
The second variable "they" above refers to "group" not "people", which is singular. This sentence could be further optimized. Suggestion: "If a group built their own cars, it would still have to follow those same rules to use public roads, even if it gave the cars away."
It should be the same for software
Uninitialized variable. What is "it"? Please specify.
It is possible to make error-free code, or at least to get a lot closer to it than we do at the moment, but it takes time and effort. Doing it...
Overuse of "it". Please be more explicit in your casting.
Bill, please check your fixes as soon as possible before someone gets the idea to sue. Thanks.
If someone gave you a free frig and it ends up burning your house down, I guess you would still find that acceptable.