Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the conversation++ dept.

Bunnie Huang, hardware hacker, wrote a brief article about transparency versus liability in the context of open hardware. He covers some of the tradeoffs without going into depth.

[...] Should a buggy library you develop be used in a home automation appliance that later causes a house to catch fire, you get to walk away scot-free, thanks to the expansive limited-liability clauses that are baked into every open source software licence.

Unfortunately, hardware makers don't get to enjoy that same luxury. Beyond guaranteeing a product free from workmanship or material defects, consumer protection law often requires an implied or express 'fitness for purpose' guarantee – that a piece of hardware is capable of doing what it's advertised to do. The latest controversy over Spectre/Meltdown indicates that more people than not feel CPU makers like Intel should be liable for these bugs, under the 'fitness for purpose' theory.

Open hardware makers should be deeply concerned. [...]

At BlackHat 2014, Dan was more specific regarding software and raised, with Poul-Henning Kamp, the idea that normal liability laws should also apply to software. But with that liability in place, exemptions should be available if vendors supply complete and buildable source code along with a license that allows disabling any functionality or code that the licensee decides against. Poul-Henning has called for a long time for changes to liability laws for software.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:04AM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:04AM (#657845) Journal

    You may have missed the bit in TFS and TFA about an exemption for open source. But, even if open source doesn't get an exemption, open source is still in a much better position than your closed source proprietary code. See, with may or most open source projects, any responsibility is shared among many different people, companies, and organizations. With closed source, only one entity has access to the code - therefore, that one entity MUST bear all responsibility.

    This can all be summed up as, "If you want all the rewards, then you bear all responsibility." And, the obverse, "If you don't want the responsibility, then share the rewards."

    Assuming, for a moment, that the ultimate objective of technology, research, science, capitalism, or any other aspect of our civilization, is to improve mankind's existence, then our current "intellectual property" law is well and truly fucked up.

    We need to get back to the basics of our original copyright and patent laws. "If there is a profit to be made with an idea, then the author should get some of that profit." Key word is "IF". Maybe ideas are worthy of zero profit. IF that idea is worthy of being profitable, then the author gets some of that profit. That profitability must be time limited, to the tune of fifteen or twenty years.

    IP should simply NOT be what the corporations want it to be.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:32PM (2 children)

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:32PM (#657968)

    With closed source, only one entity has access to the code - therefore, that one entity MUST bear all responsibility.

    I have worked on closed source projects (in fact, probably the vast majority of those I have worked on) where part or all of the code (in source form, binary component sharing is even more common) was shared between entities, sometimes many entities. Access to the code, and control, is controlled by contracts which often have strict conditions and penalties for breach, just as the performance of the code may also have to meet conditions. Access may be for regulatory approval, security audit in addition to use in other products by other parties, multiple parties may have modification rights.

    Just because _you_ don't have access to the code, or have limited or no rights, does not mean that others (even many others) don't have access.

    This can all be summed up as, "If you want all the rewards, then you bear all responsibility." And, the obverse, "If you don't want the responsibility, then share the rewards."

    That would be a major change from the way liability laws currently work, certainly where I am.

    Companies would not be liable if there was no profit (reward) in a product? That can be arranged, and hence liability avoided, at will.

    You aren't responsible for the consequences of work you do for free? Nope, you "fix" your neighbours gas for free you better do it right, you absolutely are liable if you screw up and blow their house up.

    Responsibility generally goes with _control_ not with reward - or more correctly you cannot usually be held responsible for things you do not control. There is natural justice in that too. Unfortunately that is also where major problems arise, as in many places consumer protection laws (because the average consumer is an idiot, and half of them are stupider than that) prevent you passing liability on to end users, and contractually you may be bound not to do that as well. This means you _cannot_ use some forms of open source as they require control to be passed to the end user as a condition of using the code, something you are legally and/or contractually bound not to do - the GPL does this since rms had his Vader moment. So extending liability so it's like hardware isn't all good news for open source, exemptions or not.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:02PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:02PM (#657977) Journal

      You seem to have missed the bottom line here, which is, the bottom line. When you write code, it is for profit. Someone is going to put money in the bank when that closed source code is tested and released. Investors are expecting return on their investment - profit.

      And, all of us commoners are excluded from sharing either the code or the profit.

      Control does infer responsibility, but the expectation of profit also infers responsibility. Have you ever noticed that you can drive your personal car, legally, with just several thousands of dollars worth of insurance, or "financial responsibility", but commercial vehicles carry a minimum of a million dollars worth of insurance? Profit.

      As for the neighbor with a gas leak - you're partly right. If I'm "helping" him, he retains responsibility for his gas lines. If, however, I volunteer to fix his problems, then I've assumed some part of his responsibility. And, finally, if I accept pay for fixing his problems, I've assumed all the responsibility for those problems.

      Do you get paid for the code you write? Does your employer get paid for the use of that code? Professionals and amateurs live in entirely different worlds, despite your attempt to blur that fact.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @05:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @05:36PM (#658549)

      I have worked on closed source projects

      dirty skank.

      This means you _cannot_ use some forms of open source as they require control to be passed to the end user as a condition of using the code, something you are legally and/or contractually bound not to do - the GPL does this

      oh, you poor, poor sell out!

      since rms had his Vader moment

      what a bastard! Thinking he can provide an alternative future where humans keep/gain their freedom from slavetraders like you.