Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining Software Liability In the Open Source Community

Posted by timothy on from the three-letters-starting-f-u-d dept.

snydeq writes "Guidelines from the American Law Institute that seek to hold vendors liable for 'knowingly' shipping buggy software could have dramatic impact on the open source community, as vague language around a 'free software' exemption could put open source developers at litigation risk. Meant to protect open source developers, the 'free software' exemption does not take into account the myriad ways in which vendors receive revenue from software products, according to a joint letter drafted by Microsoft and the Linux Foundation. As such, the guidelines — which, although not binding, are likely to prove influential on future lawsuits, according to attorneys on both sides of the issue — call into question the notion of liability in the open source community, where any number of coders may be responsible for any given defect."

3 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. bollocks by shentino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd say that ye olde standards of gross negligence and recklessness should cover any profoundly careless bugs.

    The trick is to get them to apply to corporations like MS.

  2. Sue who for what now? by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First point, if someone working for hire at Red Hat, Novell, or IBM knowingly (how's that defined?) ships buggy open source software, why shouldn't the company be held liable, if they would be held liable for shipping buggy closed source? Second point, who is going to sue some no-name contributor who doesn't have any money anyway, especially if you have to prove that that particular developer knew there were bugs? I love open source, but I feel that if we as a community want to be taken seriously, we should be held to the same standards as closed source software.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  3. Re:I believe almost every free software I use has. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS IMPLIED. USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK" or some combination of that. Even my home server says that every time I SSH into it.

    There is no reason that a legislature cannot pass a law saying that this disclaimer is contrary to public policy and won't be respected in the courts.

    For instance, in my State, contracts to purchase a car that are "AS-IS" are not legal. You can write those terms into the contract and the buyer can sign it, but if she turns around and sues you the Court won't give effect to that part of the contract.

    Another example, I cannot rent an apartment or house "AS-IS", I am required by law that my rentals conform to a general standard of habitability. It doesn't matter how many times in the rental contract I disclaim any warranty of habitability, I still have to provide a habitable dwelling.

    Consumer protection statutes are full of these sorts of provisions that forbid the use of certain kinds of terms and conditions. You can't sell food without a warranty of non-contamination or edibility, you can't sell children's playground equipment without a warranty of safety, .....

    TL;DR version: the law does not have to respect your right to contract under whatever terms you see fit (I'll leave the normative argument of whether it should for another time & place).