Subject: RE: [les-software] disclosure of known defects
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:35:23 -0700 (MST)


On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Russell McOrmond wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > > (2) undertaking software development in a collaborative fashion so
> > > that contributors are encouraged to find, document and fix defects;
> >
> > Contributors to closed source software also collaborate and are
> > encouraged to find, document, and fix defects. To be precise, you
> > could say that open source software has a larger pool of potential
> > contributors. Whether more contributors always results in better
> > software is debatable, of course.
>
> If you think of software as an application of social sciences and
> apply techniques from politics and other social sciences to it, the
> conclusions will be very different.

I was careful to make no conclusions. I just stated the fact: both
closed and open source projects are usually developed in a
collaborative fashion so that contributors are encouraged to find,
document and fix defects. The only factual difference is the size of
the pool of potential contributors. I made no conclusions from that
factual difference.

>   You only have full peer review when you are willing to expose your
> software/policy ("code is law") to full public view with all readers

Statement (2) did not talk about full public review. It only talked
about development in a collaborative fashion.

> > > (3) disclaiming all warranties and disclaiming liability to the
> > > maximum extent permitted by law.
> >
> > Same for commercial software.
>
> I assume you mean "software manufacturing" given that both FLOSS and
> "software manufacturing" can be commercial software.

I meant that both open and closed software development projects
usually disclaim everything they can. Thus, item (3) is also not a
differentiating factor.

Alex.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3