zlacker

[return to "Open source liability is coming"]
1. within+n5[view] [source] 2023-12-29 18:33:31
>>daniel+(OP)
FINALLY. This industry needs some regulation...

I'm mostly curious what that means for something like the MIT license... For those who need a refresher, this is the part I mean.

> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

◧◩
2. paulgb+96[view] [source] 2023-12-29 18:38:06
>>within+n5
> This industry needs some regulation

Are there cases of open source projects being careless or negligent that have caused harm that this would address? Aside from some unintentional vulnerabilities that have been found, it’s hard for me to think of an example that would necessitate more regulation.

◧◩◪
3. within+G6[view] [source] 2023-12-29 18:40:33
>>paulgb+96
I can think of exactly one rather popular one: left-pad.

The author should have been liable for the damage they caused. The industry self-regulated itself but that is a case that I can think of, specifically caused by negligence.

◧◩◪◨
4. sevagh+f7[view] [source] 2023-12-29 18:42:44
>>within+G6
Npm Inc. is the only party liable for left-pad.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. within+38[view] [source] 2023-12-29 18:45:45
>>sevagh+f7
NPM wasn't the one who pushed the "delete project" button, knowing full well what would happen.
[go to top]