zlacker

>>diyftw+(OP)
Small businesses and solo-entrepreneurs have to deal with liability and permits all the time in other fields, even actual street bazaars for that matter, exception being when there is some "flexibility" between the laws and how they happen to be applied.

>>pjmlp+Cm
> Small businesses and solo-entrepreneurs have to deal with liability and permits all the time in other fields,

In other fields there is a direct relation between number of customers and liability.

But if i offer free software and also offer commercial support for it, and because of that i would be liable to everyone who uses that software, not just to those who pay for commercial support, then there is no relation between number of customers and liability, and liability cannot be really priced-in.

>>zajio1+nB
It can be priced in you just change the minimum price from $0 to how much liability would cost you.

>>charci+sE
It would be a huge gamble if the "0$ version" (e.g. GitHub repo) gets more popular that anticipated and the one with the bigger price tag not growing accordingly and the whole risk calculation falls apart.

There is always the possibility to only offer the priced version, even if it is free software. Someone else could of course redistribute it and then it would be their responsibility. That would be a less convenient world.

An open question certainly also is, when it becomes a product? Source Code alone (inredients)? Or executable form (usable)?

>>throwa+kd1
> There is always the possibility to only offer the priced version, even if it is free software. Someone else could of course redistribute it and then it would be their responsibility.

I thought the CRA would make the original distributor responsible for what they distributed. So A distributed to B and B redistributes to C, A is still has responsibilities to C. B might also have be in trouble when something goes wrong but B redistributing does not shield A to my understanding.