[les-software] disclosure of known defects

[Russell McOrmond]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> > (2) undertaking software development in a collaborative fashion so
> > that contributors are encouraged to find, document and fix defects;
> 
> Contributors to closed source software also collaborate and are
> encouraged to find, document, and fix defects. To be precise, you
> could say that open source software has a larger pool of potential
> contributors. Whether more contributors always results in better
> software is debatable, of course.

  If you think of software as an application of natural sciences and apply
engineering techniques to it for creation/testing/etc, this is what the
conclusion will be.

  If you think of software as an application of social sciences and apply
techniques from politics and other social sciences to it, the conclusions
will be very different.


  You only have full peer review when you are willing to expose your
software/policy ("code is law") to full public view with all readers --
including and especially your political enemies -- with any citizen having
the right to publicly publish a critique or other form of update (patch).  
All code/policy has engineer-like review and testing, but the real test of
code/policy accountability and transparency required to get good
code/policy comes from methodologies from the social sciences.


> > (3) disclaiming all warranties and disclaiming liability to the
> > maximum extent permitted by law.
> 
> Same for commercial software.

  I assume you mean "software manufacturing" given that both FLOSS and 
"software manufacturing" can be commercial software.

> > If a client of mine were ever seriously injured (personally or
> > financially) by a software defect known to the vendor but not
> > reported to consumers, I'd sue for fraud regardless of the
> > disclaimers of warranty and liability.
> 
> Ouch. Would you sue an open source vendor or just the closed source
> one (all other factors being the same)?

  Other than accountability and transparency, something that open source 
requires and closed source prohibits, are relevant factors?

  Since "software manufacturing" vendors wish their software to be treated 
similar to tangible products in the marketplace, the same consumer 
protection laws should apply to them (no ability to disclaim entire 
warranty) as other tangible products.   Since FLOSS vendors do not 
operate treating software as a product, then their disclaimer of warranty 
for their intangibles should be honored.

  Software manufacturing vendors should not be allowed to have it both
ways, treating their works as similar to tangibles when it suits them, and
as intangibles otherwise.

  These are very different situations being compared, and the ways the law 
treats software created using different methodologies should be different.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3