From: Brian on
On Feb 12, 3:36 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:42 am, Leif Roar Moldskred
>
>
>
> <le...(a)huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > In comp.lang.java.programmer Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is what I am getting at, although we need to have
> > > Brian's example as a baseline. In this day and age, however,
> > > I'm not convinced that a person could even give away a free
> > > car (it wouldn't be free in any case, it would still get
> > > taxed, and you'd have to transfer title) and be completely
> > > off the hook, although 99 times out of 100 I'd agree with
> > > Brian that it's not a likely scenario for lawsuits.
> > Where Brian's example falls down is that the previous owner of
> > the car is, in effect, just a reseller: he isn't likely to
> > have manufactured the car or modified it to any degree.
> > However, let us assume that he _has_ done modifications to the
> > car such as, say, replacing the fuel tank. If he messed up the
> > repair and, without realising it, turned the fuel car into a
> > potential firebomb, he would be liable for this defect even if
> > he gave the car away free of charge.
>
> He doesn't even have to have done that much.  If he knows that
> the brakes doen't work, and he lets you drive it, he's legally
> responsible.


I have no problem with that. Some though believe that
if you give away a car and aren't aware of a problem
with the car, that you are still liable. I don't think
I'm obligated to have a car looked at by a mechanic
before giving it away. If it is safe to the best of my
knowledge, then I should just tell whoever wants the
car about it's history and encourage them to have the
car checked out.


Brian Wood
http://webEbenezer.net
(651) 251-9384
From: Arved Sandstrom on
Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-02-12, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> With software the law is immature. To my way of thinking there are some
>> implied obligations that come into effect as soon as a software program
>> is published, regardless of price. Despite all the "legal" disclaimers
>> to the effect that all the risk is assumed by the user of the free
>> software, the fact is that the author would not make the program
>> available unless he believed that it worked, and unless he believed that
>> it would not cause harm. This is common sense.
>
> Common sense has the interesting attribute that it is frequently totally
> wrong.
>
> I have published a fair amount of code which I was quite sure had at
> least some bugs, but which I believed worked well enough for recreational
> use or to entertain. Or which I thought might be interesting to someone
> with the time or resources to make it work. Or which I believed worked in
> the specific cases I'd had time to test.

It sounds like you're saying what I said, which is that publication for
an announced purpose - recreational use, proper operation in specific
defined cases, as a baseline for future work - is a statement that it is
fit for that purpose. If there are no qualifying statements (bug list,
READMEs etc), then the implication is that the exposed functionality of
the program is considered to work.

Either that or the author is so apathetic about his product that he
doesn't know about half the defects and can't be bothered to tell anyone
about the other half that he does know about.

> I do believe that software will not cause harm *unless people do something
> stupid with it*. Such as relying on it without validating it.

Validating it? That's all well and good if you're writing a program for
other developers. It is not something that you can expect average
computer users to understand or be capable of doing.

>> I don't know if there is a legal principle attached to this concept, but
>> if not I figure one will get identified. Simply put, the act of
>> publishing _is_ a statement of fitness for use by the author, and to
>> attach completely contradictory legal disclaimers to the product is
>> somewhat absurd.
>
> I don't agree. I think it is a reasonable *assumption*, in the lack of
> evidence to the contrary, that the publication is a statement of *suspected*
> fitness for use. But if someone disclaims that, well, you should assume that
> they have a reason to do so.
>
> Such as, say, knowing damn well that it is at least somewhat buggy.
[ SNIP ]

It has something to do with the nature of the disclaimer. If someone
specifically documents that such-and-such functionality doesn't work,
that's cool. I can live with that - that's normal. I have much less
tolerance for the blanket disclaimer that essentially states that
_nothing_ works, except when it does. Since no developer would actually
publish a product where they truly believed that nothing worked, these
blanket disclaimers are at odds with reality and legally ought to be
null and void.

AHS
From: Leif Roar Moldskred on
In comp.lang.java.programmer Brian <coal(a)mailvault.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 3:14�pm, Leif Roar Moldskred
> <le...(a)huldreheim.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.java.programmer Brian <c...(a)mailvault.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > That is true in a traditional model of exchanging
>> > money for a product or service. �If you don't pay
>> > for the good or service, you have no "rights."
>>
>> That's quite simply not correct.
>>
>
> Who has successfully sued a Boost developer or Boost
> as a whole over their open source code? No one has
> sued Ebenezer Enterprises either. T

Nobody has successfully convicted me of manslaughter
either, but that doesn't mean that manslaughter is
legal.

Can you name any incident of a developer of
_commercial_ software having been sued over defects
in their software and found liable? On top of my head
I can't think of any -- but then I can't think of any
cases where manufacturers of chainsaws have been sued
and found liable over defects in their products either.
That says more about my ignorance of case law than it
does of the legal realities.

That there is no money changing hands and (usually)
no business relationship between developer and user
for open source software _does_ curtail the developer's
liability, and the language of most open source
licenses serves to limit it further. What it doesn't
do, however, is to remove _all_ liability.

There is a reason why the GPL states that "there is no
warranty for the program, to the extent permitted by
applicable law" and that is that "applicable law" tend
to prohibit the ceding of _all_ liability. You can
cede a lot, but not everything.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Brian on
On Feb 12, 4:22 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seebs wrote:
> > On 2010-02-12, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> With software the law is immature. To my way of thinking there are some
> >> implied obligations that come into effect as soon as a software program
> >> is published, regardless of price. Despite all the "legal" disclaimers
> >> to the effect that all the risk is assumed by the user of the free
> >> software, the fact is that the author would not make the program
> >> available unless he believed that it worked, and unless he believed that
> >> it would not cause harm. This is common sense.
>
> > Common sense has the interesting attribute that it is frequently totally
> > wrong.
>
> > I have published a fair amount of code which I was quite sure had at
> > least some bugs, but which I believed worked well enough for recreational
> > use or to entertain.  Or which I thought might be interesting to someone
> > with the time or resources to make it work.  Or which I believed worked in
> > the specific cases I'd had time to test.
>
> It sounds like you're saying what I said, which is that publication for
> an announced purpose - recreational use, proper operation in specific
> defined cases, as a baseline for future work - is a statement that it is
> fit for that purpose. If there are no qualifying statements (bug list,
> READMEs etc), then the implication is that the exposed functionality of
> the program is considered to work.
>
> Either that or the author is so apathetic about his product that he
> doesn't know about half the defects and can't be bothered to tell anyone
> about the other half that he does know about.
>
> > I do believe that software will not cause harm *unless people do something
> > stupid with it*.  Such as relying on it without validating it.
>
> Validating it? That's all well and good if you're writing a program for
> other developers. It is not something that you can expect average
> computer users to understand or be capable of doing.
>
> >> I don't know if there is a legal principle attached to this concept, but
> >>   if not I figure one will get identified. Simply put, the act of
> >> publishing _is_ a statement of fitness for use by the author, and to
> >> attach completely contradictory legal disclaimers to the product is
> >> somewhat absurd.
>
> > I don't agree.  I think it is a reasonable *assumption*, in the lack of
> > evidence to the contrary, that the publication is a statement of *suspected*
> > fitness for use.  But if someone disclaims that, well, you should assume that
> > they have a reason to do so.
>
> > Such as, say, knowing damn well that it is at least somewhat buggy.
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> It has something to do with the nature of the disclaimer. If someone
> specifically documents that such-and-such functionality doesn't work,
> that's cool. I can live with that - that's normal. I have much less
> tolerance for the blanket disclaimer that essentially states that
> _nothing_ works, except when it does. Since no developer would actually
> publish a product where they truly believed that nothing worked, these
> blanket disclaimers are at odds with reality and legally ought to be
> null and void.
>


On the other hand you can only report that it works fine here.
I publish based on that and have some knowledge of what other
work environments are like. Therefore I believe that what
works here will often work there. However, since I have
little to no control over those other environments, it is
impossible to say for sure what will or won't work. Context/
Environment is everything and I'm not G-d. I don't bother
with those blanket disclaimers. I think it goes without
saying when something is a freebie.


Brian Wood
http://webEbenezer.net
(651) 251-9384
From: Seebs on
On 2010-02-12, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like you're saying what I said, which is that publication for
> an announced purpose - recreational use, proper operation in specific
> defined cases, as a baseline for future work - is a statement that it is
> fit for that purpose. If there are no qualifying statements (bug list,
> READMEs etc), then the implication is that the exposed functionality of
> the program is considered to work.

Perhaps, unless there's an explicit disclaimer.

But if there is one, then I don't think it's reasonable to expect
functionality between that promised by the disclaimer.

> Validating it? That's all well and good if you're writing a program for
> other developers. It is not something that you can expect average
> computer users to understand or be capable of doing.

Conveniently, in general, I don't write programs that are aimed at end
users. In general; there have been exceptions, of course.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!