Subject: Re: EROS and liability
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:55:54 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes:

    Ian> The proprietor is likely to say that they only support
    Ian> certain sorts of modifications (and even more likely to say
    Ian> that the product is completely without warranty of any kind).

Jonathan explicitly says that he expects his company to assume certain
kinds of liability.  His problem is how to limit it to the parts that
are related to quality of his product, not to misuse by downstream
agents.

It is true that we are used to software developers assuming no
liability.  But that's a gaping hole of an opportunity for somebody
who actually produces 6-sigma software (or thinks they do).  There is
a lot of money to be made by taking responsibility for one's mistakes.

    Ian> In fact, if anything, I think only a programmer would think
    Ian> that the manufacturer was doing something reasonable.  I
    Ian> think the average person on the street would think the
    Ian> manufacturer had screwed up.

I think that the man in the street would find the following output
from "diff" rather convincing:

$ diff licensed/module-with-bug.c free/module-with-bug.c
$

at least once the fact that lack of output isn't a diff bug is
explained.  :-)

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."