An anonymous reader writes "Bill Thompson, a regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Go Digital, criticizes current software licenses (including the GPL) for giving developers 'freedom from responsibility which would be considered wholly unacceptable in almost any other sphere of activity, public or private'." From the article: "A friend of mine is a children's writer. When she writes a non-fiction book she is typically asked to sign a contract that indemnifies the publisher against legal costs resulting from errors of fact in the book. If she was to suggest a school experiment that involved drinking sulphuric acid, because she'd confused it with acetic, then she'd be in big trouble. Yet I can't do anything when a company produces software that exposes my online banking details to any script kiddie with time to spare, because I've agreed a license that removes such liability. "Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='tech';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; BBC Commentator Goes After Software Licensing Log in/Create an Account | Top | 442 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 442 comments 0: 434 comments 1: 352 comments 2: 237 comments 3: 52 comments 4: 22 comments 5: 16 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. (1) | 2 agreed (Score:4, Funny) by BushCheney08 (917605) on Friday September 30, @01:21PM (#13686425) I agree. I should be able to sue CmdrTaco for getting me fired. [ Reply to ThisRe:It's a simple matter of terminology. by billthom (Score:1)Sunday October 02, @11:39AM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Bad analogy by pmike_bauer (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:22PM Re:Bad analogy (Score:4, Informative) by kfg (145172) on Friday September 30, @01:41PM (#13686697) Well, then it's a damned good thing he didn't use that analogy, isn't it.In fact, he didn't use an analogy at all, since author is to author isn't an analogy. He merely brought up the indemnification of the publisher to illustrate that in fields other than software authors can be held accountable for what they write and publishers do not wish to be the "deep pockets" target of the accountability.And software has publishers too.KFG [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Bad analogy by dnoyeb (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:12PMRe:Bad analogy by kfg (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:40PMRe:Bad analogy by pmike_bauer (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:56PMRe:Bad analogy by kfg (Score:1)Friday September 30, @04:18PMRe:Bad analogy by billthom (Score:1)Sunday October 02, @11:42AMRe:Bad analogy by kfg (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:14PMRe:Bad analogy by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:20PMRe:Bad analogy by Aphexian (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:24PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Bad analogy by eMartin (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:41PMRe:Bad analogy by hobbesx (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:59PMRe:Bad analogy by sedyn (Score:3)Friday September 30, @02:02PMRe:Bad analogy by richdun (Score:3)Friday September 30, @02:29PMRe:Bad analogy by sedyn (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:36PMRe:Bad analogy by rtb61 (Score:2)Friday September 30, @07:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. S.W. is not a complete product (Score:4, Interesting) by Dare nMc (468959) on Friday September 30, @03:19PM (#13687719) I think the bad analogy in this article is between the products. In the case of a book, it is a complete product. When a book is released, it is unlikely to be used for other than the intended purposes, and when used with another product it is not expected to still stand on its own (you cant subst the 265th page for another authors page, and expect it to work, but that is expected of the dll's, windows 98 vs XP, etc.)Most software is either released inside a complete product, and the product liabilty is left intact. Or it is software inteded to be used with other software, and with the original programmers usually not being the system integraters, going back to a single person to be responsible is no longer easy or practical. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Bad analogy by pmike_bauer (Score:1)Friday September 30, @05:48PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.About time by bruce_the_loon (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:22PMRe:About time by peragrin (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:25PMRe:About time by JohanV (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:41PMRe:About time by Cat_Byte (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:41PMRe:About time by yozzman (Score:1)Saturday October 01, @04:58AMRe:About time by Spankophile (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:49PMRe:About time by dwandy (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:53PMYeah... by Anonymous Coward (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:31PM malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums (Score:5, Insightful) by Travoltus (110240) on Friday September 30, @01:47PM (#13686781) Just so you know, malpractice premiums do not decrease for doctors in states where malpractice awards are capped to $250,000. Most lawsuits are launched when doctors maim or kill patients due to negligence, not because of highly publicized frivolous reasons. Your analogy is flawed, to say the least.Now let's get back on topic. It's wrong for people to make excuses for bugs in code which expose my personal information to hackers, stalkers and marketers. I'd just as soon see the industry grind to a halt until they find a way to nip these miscreants in the bud. And no, I can't opt out of this dangerous system unless I stop driving (so much for being able to get food), close my bank account (yeah, hide my money under my bed so a thief has a reason to physically rob me and then kill my whole family to get rid of witnesses), declare myself dead (to retire my SSN - whoops, that's illegal, welcome to Club Fed! - or at least, welcome to joblessness) and practically move out of the country (well, actually that's a good idea if Canada is my destination).Thanks to stupid programmers there's absolutely no way anyone can protect themselves from identity thieves. The only reason why someone hasn't hijacked you is that they don't care to.Now please, come back after you find yourself having to fight for years to fix your credit after a hacker stole your personal information off Lexis-Nexis and then tell me they shouldn't stop the digital train for some major overhauls. Until you're a victim of the gaping flaws in the digital fortress you really don't understand the sharpness of that sword of Damocles that is swinging back and forth over your head. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by tchuladdiass (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:04PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Terralthra (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:25PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by KingVance (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:12PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by CastrTroy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @09:41PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Terralthra (Score:1)Friday September 30, @09:56PMSued for stolen car... by cbiltcliffe (Score:2)Saturday October 01, @10:02PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by CastrTroy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @10:15PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by CastrTroy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @10:18PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by multiplexo (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:04PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by MaxwellStreet (Score:3)Friday September 30, @02:22PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by billthom (Score:1)Sunday October 02, @11:47AMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Skreems (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:30PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Intron (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:3)Friday September 30, @03:04PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Chyeld (Score:3)Friday September 30, @03:22PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Belial6 (Score:3)Friday September 30, @03:30PM Re:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums (Score:4, Insightful) by bigpat (158134) on Friday September 30, @03:38PM (#13687896) Now let's get back on topic. It's wrong for people to make excuses for bugs in code which expose my personal information to hackers, stalkers and marketers. I'd just as soon see the industry grind to a halt until they find a way to nip these miscreants in the bud. And no, I can't opt out of this dangerous system unless I stop driving (so much for being able to get food), close my bank account (yeah, hide my money under my bed so a thief has a reason to physically rob me and then kill my whole family to get rid of witnesses), declare myself dead (to retire my SSN - whoops, that's illegal, welcome to Club Fed! - or at least, welcome to joblessness) and practically move out of the country (well, actually that's a good idea if Canada is my destination).and againI'd just as soon see the industry grind to a haltSo, you'd like to see everyone just stop until it is completely safe, but you can't see how it is you could live without the systems that are in place. By the industry grinding to a halt, you mean your just going to stay home and eat your scrambled eggs until the world is without risk. Until your fluffy little world is just right to you.Well, the world ain't perfect and you do have choice. And people should be free to assume whatever level of responsibility they feel comfortable with as long as there is no fraud. Doctors should be able to make patients sign legally enforceable waivers of complete responsibility from even claims of malpractice. And so too should manufacturers of software and hardware. If that car manufacturer want to make you sign a contract that says that their cars may explode upon key insertion and they are not liable for damages beyond the cost of the car, then that should be the way it is. Then let some decide to indemnify and other not and see if the price difference is worth it to customers.Perfection costs time and money and is most often illusory, so to mandate it is a fools errand. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Hold service vendors responsible! by kylef (Score:3)Friday September 30, @03:54PMSafes tend to be... safe by Monte (Score:1)Friday September 30, @05:58PMRe:Safes tend to be... safe by arkanes (Score:2)Friday September 30, @06:54PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by Stephen Samuel (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:57PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by idsofmarch (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:15PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by jools33 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @04:28PMNothing to do with FLOSS licenses, though... by csirac (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:01PMDon't worry, I'm a moron. by csirac (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:12PMRe:malpractice caps do NOT decrease premiums by timmarhy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @06:06PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Yeah... by shutdown -p now (Score:2)Friday September 30, @09:40PMRe:About time by xtracto (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:36PM Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful) by Skye16 (685048) on Friday September 30, @01:39PM (#13686675) I disagree. You don't like buying/using my software because I'm free from any responsibility if it runs amok and kills your family and makes love to your motorcycle? Don't use it. I'm not going to make you. If you don't feel comfortable dealing with those circumstances on your own if they happen, then I don't want you to use my software products (not that I actually have any, but still). If you don't like it - write up a new license claiming responsibility for whatever it is your software may do. Write whatever software you want. Users will possibly flock to you just for the peace of mind they would get (or is it piece of mind? ;D). Of course, so will the lawyers, but hey, it was your choice (as a developer) to release software under those conditions anyway. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:About time by freeweed (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:46PMRe:About time by geniusj (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:21PMRe:About time by freeweed (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:23PMRe:About time by geniusj (Score:2)Friday September 30, @06:32PMRe:About time by Skye16 (Score:2)Friday September 30, @07:05PMRe:About time by 'nother poster (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:48PMRe:About time by arkanes (Score:2)Friday September 30, @07:01PMRe:About time by CastrTroy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @09:57PMRe:About time by kingj02 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @04:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.If only the whole automobile industry said... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Friday September 30, @05:03PMThen, Don't Release Your Code by reallocate (Score:2)Friday September 30, @07:39PMRe:Then, Don't Release Your Code by Skye16 (Score:2)Saturday October 01, @09:58AMRe:Then, Don't Release Your Code by reallocate (Score:2)Saturday October 01, @02:27PMRe:About time by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:35PMRe:About time by mdwh2 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @10:43PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. GPL (Score:5, Insightful) by Joehonkie (665142) on Friday September 30, @01:23PM (#13686456) (http://www.giantrobeast.com/) I bet his wife gives away her books for free, too.On a more serious note, this is more expansion of the culture of victimization and the lack of responsibility that is taking over the Western world. Nothing is ever our fault, we muyst always find someone else to hold responsible for problems that we should be tough enough and capable enough to not get into or to solve ourselves. [ Reply to ThisRe:GPL by s20451 (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:41PMRe:GPL by colinrichardday (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:07PMRe:GPL by Jaseoldboss (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:52PM Parially, yes (Score:5, Insightful) by brunes69 (86786) <slashdotNO@SPAMkeirstead.org> on Friday September 30, @02:14PM (#13687054) (http://www.keirstead.org/) If you as a company, invest tens of millions into a rollout of a new software product ( be it a new version of Windows, or a new Linux Kernel), without Fully researching the present and past state of the company or individuals responsible for the software, and their abilities both demonstrated and implied.Fully looking into [resent and past security issues with the software Doing a full independant side-by-side comparison with competitors .. then Yes, you are responsible for a large part, if that software catastrophically fails. Because it is likely something you would have came across in all this research, in one form or another.Take windows for example. If you lose $500,000 in a day because some critical windows server crashed from a certain DDOS attack, should Microsoft be responsible? Or should you be responsible, because you should have known from years of examples that Windows is very vulnerabile to those kinds of attacks, and you should either have an external protection mechanism in place, or not use the software?I think the latter. Then again, I am not the person who thinks "sue" when I slip on icy stairs in the winter and break my neck either. I think "maybe I should have bought better gooddamned shoes for walking around in the winter".The other commentors are right, there is not enough responsibility in the world today. Grow a backbone and stop sueing everyone. [ Reply to This | ParentWhat about consumers? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:10PMRe:What about consumers? by Maxo-Texas (Score:2)Friday September 30, @06:05PMRe:Parially, yes by ray-auch (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:24PMRe:Parially, yes by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:15PMRe:Parially, yes by nunchux (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:48PMRe:Parially, yes by jglazer75 (Score:3)Friday September 30, @05:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ya, more or less (Score:5, Interesting) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday September 30, @02:29PM (#13687220) You choose to accept the risk, in trade for the benefits. Designing a system with no bugs is expensive and time consuming. You have to test things extensively at every level. That also means testing all the possible interactions. Not only how the OS interacts with the hardware, but how it interacts with the software, and how it interacts with each other. So when you design a system like that, the hardware neede to be known, as does all the software. You can't have it run on random comoddity hardware using random software beacuse then unforseen problems can result.So by choosing to run software cheaply and quickly developed in random environments, you choose to accept teh fact bugs may occur.To me, demanding that commoddity software on commoddity hardware run without bugs is like demanding that an automobile on the public streets never get in to an accident, even one caused by driver error, unforsseen conditions, or other drivers. Can't happen. If you want gaurentteed operation, you need controlled conditions. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Ya, more or less by arose (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:56PMRe:GPL by johnnyb (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:43PMRe:GPL by gronofer (Score:1)Friday September 30, @05:11PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:GPL by gosand (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:47PMRe:GPL by chris_mahan (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:46PMRe:GPL by Draknor (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:30PMRe:GPL by timmarhy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:53PMRe:GPL by chris_mahan (Score:1)Friday September 30, @06:21PMRe:GPL by rblum (Score:2)Friday September 30, @06:29PMRe:GPL by peeping_Thomist (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:05PMRe:GPL by gosand (Score:3)Friday September 30, @05:56PMRe:GPL by grumpyman (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:59PMRe:GPL by colinrichardday (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:13PMRe:GPL by dossen (Score:2)Saturday October 01, @09:13AMRe:GPL by billthom (Score:1)Sunday October 02, @11:51AMRe:GPL by kfg (Score:3)Friday September 30, @02:05PMRe:GPL by Joehonkie (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:36PMRe:GPL by Uzik2 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:32PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:GPL by Anonymous Coward (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:45PMRe:GPL by ergo98 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:50PMRe:GPL by Geoffreyerffoeg (Score:3)Friday September 30, @05:13PMRe:GPL by pv2b (Score:1)Saturday October 01, @09:16PMRe:GPL by azrider (Score:2)Friday September 30, @11:46PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Keyword (Score:5, Insightful) by mysqlrocks (783488) on Friday September 30, @01:23PM (#13686459) (http://www.gtalkprofile.com/profile/2.html | Last Journal: Thursday September 15, @09:54AM) The keyword is that people agree to these license. If you don't agree, don't use the software. Or, you could buy more expensive software that comes such a guarantee. I can't think of any specific examples, but I'm sure the software that runs pacemakers has some sort of guarantee. However, it's very expensive. [ Reply to This No guarantees (Score:5, Insightful) by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday September 30, @01:29PM (#13686534) (http://www.networkmirror.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 14, @12:45PM) In many cases, there is no option for a more expensive software that comes with a guarantee. Yes, some software like hospital life support and air traffic control come with a guarantee, but that is why you will see many 'normal' sw mfgs license mention these applications by name and say that you should not use their product in these environments. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:No guarantees (Score:5, Interesting) by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@ne[ ]uy.com ['wsg' in gap]> on Friday September 30, @01:59PM (#13686906) Actually in all cases there is that option. Just because no one is willing to pay $150,000 to a software development firm to create a knockoff version of Quicken and guarantee a certain level of reliablity doesn't mean it's not an option.What this guy is complaining about is the fact that he expects consumer level software to come with the same quality of proffessional level software. It's a bit idealistic and unreasonable.If you aren't willing to pony up the money for quality, you shouldn't complain about the quality of the what you get. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No guarantees by ifwm (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:27PMRe:No guarantees by Chyeld (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:09PMRe:No guarantees by R2.0 (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:25PMRe:No guarantees by Chyeld (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:34PMRe:No guarantees by R2.0 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @06:23PMRe:No guarantees by ray-auch (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No guarantees by hobbesx (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:04PMGuarantee is spelled "liability insurance"... by fahrbot-bot (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:12PMRe:Guarantee is spelled "liability insurance"... by winkydink (Score:3)Friday September 30, @02:21PMRe:Guarantee is spelled "liability insurance"... by fahrbot-bot (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:03PM Bullshit. There's always an option (Score:5, Insightful) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday September 30, @02:22PM (#13687155) Pay more. Find a company willing to take a contract that includes gaurentees. However don't bitch when it's way more expensive and that it takes way longer. Don't expect something cheaply turned out on the latest hardware in a couple months. Expect that it's a verified system that takes years of testing, and is rigidly controlled.There are companies that make solutions like this, IBM is one of them. You can get a mainframe setup to do database work that will never go down, ever. However it'll be expensive as hell, you will run the DB and ONLY the DB on it, it will be accessed only in rigidly controlled ways, etc. [ Reply to This | ParentIt Makes Aviation Software Expensive by smose (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:39PMRe:No guarantees by slavemowgli (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:35PMRe:No guarantees by Radar Penguin (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:39PMRe:No guarantees by erik_norgaard (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:53PMRe:No guarantees by Surt (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:01PM "life critical" (Score:4, Insightful) by CarrionBird (589738) on Friday September 30, @01:32PM (#13686574) (Last Journal: Wednesday December 01, @11:25AM) Medial equipment, avionics, there's plenty of stuff that is specifically made for situations where failure is not an option. Consumer software is not such a thing. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:"life critical" by xtracto (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Keyword by paranode (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:37PMRe:Keyword by 1u3hr (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:02PMRe:Keyword by paranode (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:18PMRe:Keyword by 1u3hr (Score:2)Friday September 30, @10:50PMRe:Keyword by M-G (Score:3)Friday September 30, @03:08PMRe:Keyword by Phroggy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:16PMRe:Keyword by CastrTroy (Score:2)Friday September 30, @10:42PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.The problem is with 'agree'. by jd (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:03PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. All she has to remember is... (Score:5, Funny) by MrByte420 (554317) * on Friday September 30, @01:25PM (#13686477) (Last Journal: Sunday May 15, @09:03PM) Little Johnny was a boy.He isn't anymore.For what he thought was H20Was H2S04 [ Reply to This Re:All she has to remember is... (Score:4, Funny) by Enigma_Man (756516) on Friday September 30, @01:32PM (#13686579) (http://cantarafamily.net/) Here lies the body of Johnathan Blake. He stepped on the gas instead of the brake.-Jesse [ Reply to This | ParentRe:All she has to remember is... by BushCheney08 (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:36PMRe:All she has to remember is... by Phanatic1a (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:34PMRe:All she has to remember is... by dR.fuZZo (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:All she has to remember is... by saskboy (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:39PMRe:All she has to remember is... by mblase (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:48PMRe:All she has to remember is... by davandhol (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:56PMRe:All she has to remember is... by Smauler (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:12PMRe:All she has to remember is... by fooDfighter (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:13PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:All she has to remember is... by Eric Smith (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:00PMRe:All she has to remember is... by Sycraft-fu (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:16PMRe:All she has to remember is... by lucky130 (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:27PMSure thing, we'll get right on that by Rocko Bonaparte (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:25PMRe:Sure thing, we'll get right on that by JaredOfEuropa (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:50PMRe:Sure thing, we'll get right on that by Spankophile (Score:1)Friday September 30, @01:55PMRe:Sure thing, we'll get right on that by maetenloch (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:06PMNobody is stopping them. by Russ Nelson (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:18PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Sure thing, we'll get right on that by Sloppy (Score:1)Friday September 30, @07:05PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. you don't "license" use of a book (Score:5, Insightful) by Yonder Way (603108) on Friday September 30, @01:25PM (#13686485) (http://viridari.com/) The license is an agreement. If you don't like the terms, don't accept the license, and don't use the software.There is a lot of crap out there about companies liking proprietary software because it gives them someone to sue when the software breaks catastrophically. That Microsoft has about a $40 billion dollar war chest, earned almost entirely through the sale of very broken software, pokes some big holes in that theory.You're getting software for free. Don't bitch about indemnity in the license. [ Reply to This Re:you don't "license" use of a book (Score:5, Insightful) by cowscows (103644) on Friday September 30, @01:40PM (#13686687) (http://shawn.redhive.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 26, @10:04AM) Yeah, there are places that require much more stringent checks of their software. NASA doesn't just quickly throw together stuff and upload it onto the space shuttle, they test the hell out of it. And so they get high quality stuff written directly for their hardware. The downside to this is that development is slow, and it's expensive.So basically, if you want software that's guaranteed, you're going to have to do a few things.A) Pay someone a whole lot of money to write it.B) Test the hell out of it before it gets put in place.C) Realize that this is going to take a long timeD) Probably pick some very specific hardware for it to function with, and not have the option to easily upgrade in the future.E) Make sure you get all the feature requests and whatnot right the first time, because patches and stuff are not going to be easy or cheap.The market, for the most part, has opted for halfway broken software for a couple reasons. Upfront costs, freedom to grow/update/expand more easily, and because brokenass Windows was good enough for a lot of stuff. Hardware increases allowed significant boosts in productivity, and to a large degree, software was just sort of along for the ride. Now that commodity hardware offers so much power that the drive to upgrade is much less of a factor, it might make more sense to focus more on software quality. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:you don't "license" use of a book by BishopBerkeley (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:41PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by cowscows (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:12PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by under_score (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:55PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by WinterSolstice (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:33PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by pekkak (Score:1)Friday September 30, @06:05PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Z4rd0Z (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:42PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by KillShill (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:51PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by interiot (Score:2)Friday September 30, @01:53PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by renderhead (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:16PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Z4rd0Z (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:53PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by InfiniteWisdom (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:16PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by jaseuk (Score:1)Friday September 30, @03:14PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by InfiniteWisdom (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:26PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Z4rd0Z (Score:2)Friday September 30, @04:03PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:you don't "license" use of a book by ifwm (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:32PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Tim C (Score:2)Friday September 30, @02:42PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Ulrich Hobelmann (Score:1)Friday September 30, @02:44PMRe:you don't "license" use of a book by Rutulian (Score:2)Friday September 30, @03:05PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Separate Coding and Liability (Score:5, Insightful) by Renegade Lisp (315687) * on Friday September 30, @01:25PM (#13686491) To be held liable for every line of code that you write goes very muchcontrary to the free software / open source world, where developersoften simply scratch their personal itch, or work out of a genuineinterest in the matter. It is impossible for such individuals to getthe financial backing (i.e. insurance) so that they can take thislevel of responsibility for their creations.The solution, I think, is that the realms of coding and of liabilityneed to be separated. Let the coders code and let service companiessuch as IBM work together with them to provide support and, if needed,liability for customers that need it. This is exactly what happenswhen IBM "sells" Linux to Wallstreet, for example. They sell thekind of responsibility for the software that individual developerscould by no means provide. [ Reply to ThisRe:Separate Coding and Liability by KillShill (Score:3)Friday September 30, @01:53PMRe:Separate Coding and Liability by Renegade Lisp (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:10PMRe:Separate Coding and Liability by whoever57 (Score:2)Friday September 30, @05:53PMRe:Separate Coding and Liability by the morgawr (Score:2)Saturday October 01, @12:05AM