zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding what this means for people releasing open source software.

The article makes it clear that (as the author understands it, at least) someone who uses open source software in their commercial product is liable; the people who wrote the open source code [1] are not.

> If a user is harmed by software, the person they paid (targeted ads would count) must compensate them for the harm – unless the software provider can prove their software played no role in the ... harm. If open source resources are [used by] your code, you’re responsible for their performance too. *The open source resource licensed away their liability to you*.

(Emphasis mine)

[1] Assuming they used a license that limits liability, such as Apache.

>>monoos+K7
"The article makes it clear that" - Sadly the article did NOT make this clear to me. I did finally pick up on it about halfway through, but until that point I was just as confused as everybody else. The title also doesn't help.

This is about liability for the organization that releases a product to be liable for it - all parts of it - regardless of whether some of those parts were developed by 3rd parties (e.g. Apache). But again, the headline and most of the article are not clear about this.