undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSebb7673y ago0 comments

Well, you can get a full refund.

I see where you are coming from, but increasing liability for free software does not feel like a good idea to me at all. There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army, but any small open-source project or even medium sized company will be extremely vary of releasing anything.

I'm not saying you should never go there - GDPR does and it's a net improvement -, but it's extremely easy to massively overshoot.

0 comments

jszymborski3y ago

It may be free software but it's also a commercial enterprise.

Furthermore, Chromium is free software, Chrome isn't. Perhaps Google should be liable for distributing Chrome in such a sorry state, but not for what lands in Chromium.

A4ET8a8uTh03y ago

I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?

politician3y ago

If they were known to be unsafe, such as heavily rusted and the handle was loose, then yes, you could be liable.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

If software companies sold knives, this is how it would work:

You market them as iButter knives. They are actually carving knives. Half of the users are 14 years old.

You give the knives away for free, but the knives steal 1% of any food they cut.

Sometimes butter knife needs an software update in the middle of cooking.

If you sharpen the knives you lose warranty. Company says you should buy a new one regularly.

They come with a bug, when iButter knife is used on Cheese, they spontaneously transform into chainsaws.

The company says it's not a real problem because using iButter knife on anything else is against EULA

autoexec3y ago

The company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.

pcthrowaway3y ago

Of course, by design the knives would also need to take a bit of the user's blood.

paulryanrogers3y ago

Are you marketing it as a safer alternative? Do you have a near monopoly on knives?

chii3y ago

i didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in.

And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.

1 more reply

ClumsyPilot3y ago

> Well, you can get a full refund

Suppose developers of smart locks make an error, and all smartslock unlock on Fridays. When users ask the Company, they lie and claim their locks are flawless and users are to blame.

Millions of houses are robbed, people loose their life possesions, and home robbers kill some grandma.

Should the Grandma's family get just a $100 refund (price of the lock)?

> There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army

That's defeatist. If thats true, then this whole discussion is pointless.

If there are 'nobles' that don't answer to justice, we live in feudalism. Freedom and capitalism are dead.

burnished3y ago

Please dont make up alarmist analogies to try and support your point. You introduce unnecessary points of confusion with 1) whether your scenario even fits and 2) whether the outcomes even make sense.

Stick to the actual situation wherever possible.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

Alarmist? In Britain we have sent ~800 innocent people to prison because a programming error said they stole money. The software development company testified in court that their software was great, despite many inconsitencies being pointed out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

I think it should be obvious that a poorly designed product can do much more damage than it costs, both through stolen data and by causing legal action

As software intrudes into physical world, the potential for damage will keep growing.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jszymborski3y ago

It may be free software but it's also a commercial enterprise.

Furthermore, Chromium is free software, Chrome isn't. Perhaps Google should be liable for distributing Chrome in such a sorry state, but not for what lands in Chromium.

A4ET8a8uTh03y ago

I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?

politician3y ago

If they were known to be unsafe, such as heavily rusted and the handle was loose, then yes, you could be liable.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

If software companies sold knives, this is how it would work:

You market them as iButter knives. They are actually carving knives. Half of the users are 14 years old.

You give the knives away for free, but the knives steal 1% of any food they cut.

Sometimes butter knife needs an software update in the middle of cooking.

If you sharpen the knives you lose warranty. Company says you should buy a new one regularly.

They come with a bug, when iButter knife is used on Cheese, they spontaneously transform into chainsaws.

The company says it's not a real problem because using iButter knife on anything else is against EULA

autoexec3y ago

The company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.

pcthrowaway3y ago

Of course, by design the knives would also need to take a bit of the user's blood.

paulryanrogers3y ago

Are you marketing it as a safer alternative? Do you have a near monopoly on knives?

chii3y ago

i didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in.

And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.

1 more reply

ClumsyPilot3y ago

> Well, you can get a full refund

Suppose developers of smart locks make an error, and all smartslock unlock on Fridays. When users ask the Company, they lie and claim their locks are flawless and users are to blame.

Millions of houses are robbed, people loose their life possesions, and home robbers kill some grandma.

Should the Grandma's family get just a $100 refund (price of the lock)?

> There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army

That's defeatist. If thats true, then this whole discussion is pointless.

If there are 'nobles' that don't answer to justice, we live in feudalism. Freedom and capitalism are dead.

burnished3y ago

Stick to the actual situation wherever possible.

ClumsyPilot3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

I think it should be obvious that a poorly designed product can do much more damage than it costs, both through stolen data and by causing legal action

As software intrudes into physical world, the potential for damage will keep growing.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse