Who's Responsible For Accidents Caused By Open Source Self-Driving Car Software? (ieee.org)

Here's the problem. "You could download Comma.ai's new open-source Python code from Github, grab the necessary hardware, and follow the company's instructions to add semi-autonomous capabilities to specific Acura and Honda model cars (with more vehicles to follow)," writes IEEE Spectrum. But then who's legally responsible if there's an accident? Long-time Slashdot reader Registered Coward v2 writes: While many legal experts agree OSS is "buyer beware" and that Comma.ai and its CEO Georg Hotz would not be liable, it's a gray area in the law. The software is release under the MIT OSS license and the Read Me contains the disclaimer "This is alpha-quality software for research purposes only... You are responsible for complying with local laws and regulatons." The U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of court cases in the 1990s, ruled open source code as free speech protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is does that release the author(s) from liability. The EU has no EU wide rules on liability in such cases. One open question is even if the person who used the software could not sue, a third party injured by it might be able to since they are not a party to the license agreement.
An EFF attorney told HotHardware "Prosecutors and plaintiffs often urge courts to disregard traditional First Amendment protections in the case of software." But not everyone agrees. "Most legal experts that spoke with IEEE Spectrum -- and Hotz himself -- believe that if you use the company's code and something goes wrong, then it isn't liable for damages. You are."

Comments

Strict liability for coders? Bring it on!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming anyway - just like bridge builders and other REAL engineers.

So bring it on.

That way we can differentiate between the real software engineers who know what the fuck they're doing and the pretenders playing with the likes of Ruby.

Could be like airplanes

[Anonymous Coward]

and make the system integrator responsible. Like when you contract a home improvement store to add a window onto your house and it leaks. While the home improvement store just hired an independent contractor (Joe in his truck home services and window installation), you as a home owner have a contract with the store and not with Joe. It's their responsibility (the store's) to make sure the job is done correctly.

Sure, the store may go after Joe the installer, but that is their problem, not yours and the reason you didn't hire Joe directly. See subrogation.

Re:The User is responsible for open sourse softwar

[El Cubano]

I have to agree here.

If I buy a part for my car and the part's manufacturer claims that it complies with some ASE or similar standard, then if the part fails I might have a legal case (e.g., if I can prove negligence in the design or manufacture, or something that the established case law will respect). However, if I buy a part off a guy who makes them in his tool shed and hey tells me "hey, I'm not sure that this thing won't explode when apply the brake," then I am pretty sure I have no recourse whatsoever.

How is software different? If the manufacturer warrants it, then it should work as it is represented and if it fails then there is a discussion to be had. If the manufacturer disclaims warranty and it breaks (and the applicable laws don't override that; you know that in some jurisdictions that there are laws that still hold the maker or seller responsible to a degree for things they make or sell?) then I don't have a legal case.

Of course, even professionally produced commercial software normally has a EULA with a clause that reads something like "the manufacturer provides no warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose and shall not be liable for losses arising from blah, blah, blah..." If you are NASA and paying your contractors (an enormous amount of money) to mathematically prove their software correct then you might get a "yup, we certify that this software will work as designed," otherwise you have no such assurance.