zlacker

There is a principle that liability rests with the party best equipped to mitigate the liability. The commercial-ness of the product doesn't really enter into it, you see this kind of liability attribution all the time in non-commercial settings. Your product being "casual" isn't a defense per se.

The gray area where this often gets litigated is liability due to inappropriate use of a product, since liability for clear and obvious inappropriate use typically falls on the user. What constitutes an "inappropriate use" is frequently unclear, especially for casual products where you are unlikely to clearly document and delineate what does and does not constitute appropriate use. If you read the fine print of commercial enterprise software licenses, it frequently has a long list of applications for which the software is deemed inappropriate for legal purposes. The product may in fact be fine for those applications but the producer does not want to take on the liability.

It is difficult to enumerate all possible inappropriate uses of software. Enumerating inappropriate use cases to limit liability arguably conflicts with open source's principle of non-discriminatory licensing.

>>jandre+(OP)
TFA seems to imply that under the proposed rules, none of that careful analysis will matter. A software "vendor" is liable and that's the end of the story. Microsoft or GNU foundation, doesn't matter

TFA might of course be wrong, but otherwise, my concerns stand I think.