zlacker

>>daniel+(OP)
what's new here? A commercial entity selling a product that also embeds open source components is liable is that entity's product causes harm, even if the fault lies in bugs in the OSS code itself. is that new ? assuming their own license does not also indemnify them. The OSS code, at least if it's mine, has "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" right there in the license. What's the change?

>>zzzeek+Sb
The article says that someone is liable. So if a user directly uses open source would the open source maintainers be liable? Would it be the operating systems company for allowing the software to run? It’s very unclear.