Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source liability is coming

developersalliance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 239 posts

Re: Open source liability is coming

#81

Post by rini17 »

sgt101 wrote: post #57
pylua wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says it is not clear who provides relief if the user directly uses open source with no middle man. That is the most concerning part for me.

If you use open source you are accepting the license that says that there is no liability. This is similar to going walking in a national park, there is no liability for an injury that you incur. This is very different from walking in a shopping mall. If you fall in a hole on a mountain this is your problem. If you fall in a hole in a mall it's the mall's problem. The article is attempting to create a scare about thi…

The line is very unclear to me. What if that national park accepts donations/has entry fee expressly to maintain the trail, would that make them liable for accidents or not?

The telco has service agreement with customers and it's clear exactly what service it was supposed to do and failed. Where is such agreement for a random github repository? To put it a bit ad absurdum, say user supplies parameter to your math function so that it divides by zero and it results in some injury or loss. Who is liable for that? Shold judge try to parse some piece of code for whether it was reasonable for user to expect passing zero will work?

Re: Open source liability is coming

#82

Post by droopyEyelids »

notfed wrote: post #38

> the EU is finalizing rules that will make open-source creators and licensees liable for any user harm their software might cause Citation?

This nonsensical sentence is the heart of whats wrong with the article.

There is a tremendous difference between creator and licensee, and lumping them together shows either a fundamental misunderstanding or incentives so perverse they're blinding the author.

From what I understood, the liability would only touch the creator if they're providing a _service_ to the public, and wouldn't touch people who release code for others to use.

And looking at it like that, doesn't this make sense? Who would have ever expected the provider of a service would be free from liability they cause? Regardless of what tools they're using to provide it.

Re: Open source liability is coming

#83

Post by withinboredom »

d_tr wrote: post #58
withinboredom wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of exactly one rather popular one: left-pad. The author should have been liable for the damage they caused. The industry self-regulated itself but that is a case that I can think of, specifically caused by negligence.

This is a very dangerous line of thought, and frankly, appalling.

How is holding people responsible for their actions "dangerous" or "appalling?"

Re: Open source liability is coming

#84

Post by rbanffy »

CrLf wrote: post #40
treprinum wrote: post #30

EU is really bent on destroying itself by any means. First AI regulation, now open source destruction, killing off any avenues for growth for the next century. It's already uncompetitive at both.

It may be difficult to understand, but maybe the EU has other things where they want to be competitive instead? Maybe, I don't know, quality of life...? Please stop measuring the EU using US standards.

> Maybe, I don't know, quality of life...?

I’m very happy with my public healthcare. I think every American would be as well.

And not to mention that our kids don’t need to do active shooter drills in school.

Re: Open source liability is coming

#85

Post by orangea »

sgt101 wrote: post #57
pylua wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says it is not clear who provides relief if the user directly uses open source with no middle man. That is the most concerning part for me.

If you use open source you are accepting the license that says that there is no liability. This is similar to going walking in a national park, there is no liability for an injury that you incur. This is very different from walking in a shopping mall. If you fall in a hole on a mountain this is your problem. If you fall in a hole in a mall it's the mall's problem. The article is attempting to create a scare about thi…

> If you use open source you are accepting the license that says that there is no liability.

The article directly contradicts this:

> What if an open source project is used directly by consumers, and causes them harm? The public policy is clear: they must be compensated. Does it matter if they signed a license or didn’t pay someone? Their business is bankrupt, their files are in a hacker’s hands, or their own customers are suing them. Someone should be strictly liable.

Re: Open source liability is coming

#86

Post by Aerbil313 »

flir wrote: post #65
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> when faced with a choice between being liable for their own code or being liable for open source code, most companies will choose to write their own code. Not even FAANG can achieve this for 1/10th of the code they rely on.

Hmm. They can probably find other companies willing to sell them support contracts, and take on that liability. Even for things that are open source. You're back to the old enterprise software model then, really, even if the code in question is "officially" open source. You won't be able to run versions that your supplier hasn't certified, and the rate of change will slow to a crawl.

> You won't be able to run versions that your supplier hasn't certified, and the rate of change will slow to a crawl.

Interesting times indeed. Though I think open source software generally is reliable enough that companies will simply continue business as usual and take on all the liability. They have enough deep pockets to pay compensation that one time something goes wrong, or at least that's my impression.

Re: Open source liability is coming

#87

Post by rebeccaskinner »

zuminator wrote: post #78
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this part of it could break either way, but the concern is that when faced with a choice between being liable for their own code or being liable for open source code, most companies will choose to write their own code. If so, that would be a net harm to open source and user freedom. I'm not sure it'll happen, but it might. The biggest issue I see with this law is around liability for open source projects…

> most companies will choose to write their own code. That might depend on the ubiquity of the OSS in question. If a company's option is to rely on a piece of open source software that has been used billions of times over without incident versus rolling their own solution that at best has only been tested in-house, could they say the latter is really the safer bet?

I'm not saying this will happen, just that it's the one of the concerns that people have. I can certainly see the argument that some companies will go this route. It might not be the most rational decision, but people aren't always rational. Having something in your control often _feels_ safer.

Re: Open source liability is coming

#88

Post by TheBigRoomXXL »

auggierose wrote: post #71

So what happens in this situation: I write open-source software, and make it available on GitHub, together with a nice installer. I deny any liability in my license, and the users are free to install it or not. They don't pay me in any way (not even in ads). Am I liable according to new EU law?

No you are not liable. Liability is linked to a commercial activity because it is meant to protect consumers.

The article is very ambiguous in the way it describes the regulation. I recommended this one for more clarity : https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-updates-pro...

Re: Open source liability is coming

#90

Post by andrew_eu »

The article got me a bit worried about the idea of developing software out in the open, and the comments in this thread give me conflicting ideas.

If I make a public repository `ComputerCleaner` with a single file:

  #!/usr/bin/env bash

  # 

  rm -rf /
Should I soon expect to be defending legal threats from random strangers who ran this code only to gasp find that it deleted their files?
Post reply on HN