zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
This is ridiculous, all blame/liability should lie with either the provider of commercial software who chooses to rely on open source software or the end user for relying on free/open source software.

I personally will not allow people in the EU to use any software I write going forward, I imagine other open source developers will take these steps as well.

>>theLim+45
This seems a bit extreme, it isn't even a law yet (or anywhere close).

That being said, if you don't audit your open source libraries, you should be held liable. I've seen open source encryption libraries do some really dumb things that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Yet they are some of the more popular ones.

>>within+P5
Why should I be held accountable if you just run some code you found on GitHub? Am I reliable when I sell hammers and you bash your face in?

/e: let me clarify, I agree with the three comments under me. You, the commercial entity using my code, is accountable. I am not liable if you as a private person run my shitty code. I was thinking of private persons and being on the hook for my GitHub repos.

>>Rambli+x6
I think you might be misreading it. The person who ships the product commercially is liable. If you sell them your code, you'd be liable but if they just use your open source code, they are liable for any potential issues in their program caused by your code (instead of you being liable).

Basically they can't just brush off responsibility for using FOSS code by saying "well I didn't write it, it's not my fault" unless you as the FOSS developer are selling them a support contract for any potential issues in your code.