Yeah, we probably have to agree to disagree here.
I still think it would be better to put the burden of liability on the users â no matter if theyâre private individuals or big companies. (And isnât that already the case? Do we even have to solve a legal liability problem? Not talking about software quality here, thatâs a whole other issue.)
Trust me, if people got sued or went to jail, the tech industry would figure out really fast how to make these determinations.
Yeah, they would. Itâs simple: No more free software, no more publicly available projects. The only software that would ever exist is software made by large corporations who can afford the appropriate insurances and lawyers.
What youâre proposing is either classifying software in advance as âdangerousâ or âharmlessâ (Iâd argue thatâs impossible â as an extreme, think of libraries, theyâd all be âpotentially dangerousâ), or threatening free software projects with lawsuits if, at some point in the future, these projects caused an accident.
Why would anyone publish free software or contribute to it under these conditions?
Why should open source software development be any different?
IMHO because you can make software publicly available and anyone can use it for whatever they want, which the author has zero control over.
Anyway, have a good night, Iâm gonna enjoy a couple of movies now. đ đ