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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2