responsible license

[Xah Lee]

Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with
the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs breaks
that precept. In digital form, program and music and books all become
goods in essentially infinite quantity.

All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
just as goods. Wellknown examples are computer viruses and email
spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons is software bads. In a
unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is "where is
your code?", singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
judged on how much code he has contributed to the community.
Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their
homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of
their "contributions" to the world. These digital bads, including
irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
until they obtained the touting right of being the STARDARD or MOST
POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is direct. The harm of
irresponsible software (esp with unscrupulous promotion) is the
creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
scales can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain,
versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.

Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called
education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i
spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any
individual's opinion.

--
The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
software licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is
this, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and myths
to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software
producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or
transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they
build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing
Patterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) will
automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation.

In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And
this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of
awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers
includes single individual to software houses, and consumers includes
not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)

http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html

Xah
xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

(e-mail address removed) (Xah Lee) wrote nothing topical to c.l.c.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=]

___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

 

[David Schwartz]

The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
software licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is
this, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and myths
to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software
producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or
transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they
build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing
Patterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) will
automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation.

That would destroy the free software community. You could try to exempt free
software, but then you would just succeed in destroying the 'low cost'
software community. (And, in any event, since free software is not really
free, you would have a hard time exempting the free software community.
Licensing terms, even if not explicitly in dollars, have a cost associated
with them.)

Any agreement two uncoerced people make with full knowledge of the terms is
fair by definition. If I don't want to buy software unless the manufacturer
takes liability, I am already free to accept only those terms. All you want
to do is remove from the buyer the freedom to negotiate away his right to
sue for liability in exchange for a lower price.



If you seriously think government regulation to reduce people's software
buying choices can produce more reliable software, you're living in a
different world from the one that I'm living in. In fact, if all companies
were required to accept liability for their software, companies that produce
more reliable software couldn't choose to accept liability as a competitive
edge. So you'd reduce competition's ability to pressure manufacturers to
make reliable software.



Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability insurance,
raise the prices on their software, and continue to produce software that is
no more reliable. An even worse unintended consequence -- when a bug was
discovered, a company would likely go out of business leaving nobody and
nothing to maintain the software.



DS

 

[Jerry Feldman]

That would destroy the free software community. You could try to
exempt free software, but then you would just succeed in destroying
the 'low cost' software community. (And, in any event, since free
software is not really free, you would have a hard time exempting the
free software community. Licensing terms, even if not explicitly in
dollars, have a cost associated with them.)

Any agreement two uncoerced people make with full knowledge of the
terms is fair by definition. If I don't want to buy software unless
the manufacturer takes liability, I am already free to accept only
those terms. All you want to do is remove from the buyer the freedom
to negotiate away his right to sue for liability in exchange for a
lower price.



If you seriously think government regulation to reduce people's
software buying choices can produce more reliable software, you're
living in a different world from the one that I'm living in. In fact,
if all companies were required to accept liability for their software,
companies that produce more reliable software couldn't choose to
accept liability as a competitive edge. So you'd reduce competition's
ability to pressure manufacturers to make reliable software.



Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability
insurance, raise the prices on their software, and continue to produce
software that is no more reliable. An even worse unintended
consequence -- when a bug was discovered, a company would likely go
out of business leaving nobody and nothing to maintain the software.

Not only that, it would destroy some commercial software vendors. Let's
say that company a buys software from vendor b. Company a misuses that
software, and sues company b. Even though a misused the software, they
can end up costing company b a large amount of money just to defend
itself. Cessna stopped producing light single engine aircraft because of
this. not because there was anything wrong with these aircraft (They had
never lost a suit), but because of the cost of defending themselves.

 

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Not only that, it would destroy [...]

the nice hack is to increase accountability w/o increasing liability. a
programmer can do this leaving the standard liability contract constructs (NO
WARRANTY) alone, by concentrating instead on user-configurable "make check".

the key is "user-configurable". this means the testing methodology of "make
check" is complete enough to handle significant subsets of user environment
and/or data, and that the package supplies a relatively painless way to hook
this subset into the testing, prior to installation.

of course, if your package doesn't even support "make check", that's another
thing to add to the TODO (grumble grumble ;-).

thi

 

[Rob Warnock]

+---------------
| > Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability
| > insurance, raise the prices on their software, and continue to produce
| > software that is no more reliable. An even worse unintended
| > consequence -- when a bug was discovered, a company would likely go
| > out of business leaving nobody and nothing to maintain the software.
| Not only that, it would destroy some commercial software vendors. Let's
| say that company a buys software from vendor b. Company a misuses that
| software, and sues company b. Even though a misused the software, they
| can end up costing company b a large amount of money just to defend
| itself. Cessna stopped producing light single engine aircraft because of
| this. not because there was anything wrong with these aircraft (They had
| never lost a suit), but because of the cost of defending themselves.
+---------------

Piper, not Cessna. And it went bankrupt, not just "stopped producing
light singles". That's why the current successor company is called
"The NEW Piper Aircraft Company". See:

<URL:http://www.americancapital.com/news/press_releases/pr/pr19980921.html>


-Rob

 

[Christopher C. Stacy]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:23:22 -0500, Rob Warnock ("Rob") writes:

Rob> +---------------
Rob> | > Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability
Rob> | > insurance, raise the prices on their software, and continue to produce
Rob> | > software that is no more reliable. An even worse unintended
Rob> | > consequence -- when a bug was discovered, a company would likely go
Rob> | > out of business leaving nobody and nothing to maintain the software.
Rob> | Not only that, it would destroy some commercial software vendors. Let's
Rob> | say that company a buys software from vendor b. Company a misuses that
Rob> | software, and sues company b. Even though a misused the software, they
Rob> | can end up costing company b a large amount of money just to defend
Rob> | itself. Cessna stopped producing light single engine aircraft because of
Rob> | this. not because there was anything wrong with these aircraft (They had
Rob> | never lost a suit), but because of the cost of defending themselves.
Rob> +---------------

Rob> Piper, not Cessna. And it went bankrupt, not just "stopped producing
Rob> light singles". That's why the current successor company is called
Rob> "The NEW Piper Aircraft Company". See:

Rob> <URL:http://www.americancapital.com/news/press_releases/pr/pr19980921.html>

I think the story was that Cessna also had problems, even before
things went under at Piper, and they stopped making 172s and such,
and just manufactured jets up in Canada.

(You're both right.)

 

[Eric Merritt]

Piper, not Cessna. And it went bankrupt, not just "stopped producing
light singles". That's why the current successor company is called
"The NEW Piper Aircraft Company". See:

<URL:http://www.americancapital.com/news/press_releases/pr/pr19980921.html>


-Rob

Actually (to get really off topic) he was right about Cessna.
Something similar may have happened to Piper as well, but that doesnt
make him wrong. btw I think that Cessna is getting back into producins
light singles again.

 

[Jason Creighton]

On 31 Aug 2003 14:25:50 -0700

The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software.

Hmm....interesting idea.

You first.

Jason Creighton

 

[Jerry Feldman]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:23:22 -0500

+---------------
| > Manufacturers would simply purchase more expensive liability
| > insurance, raise the prices on their software, and continue to
produce| > software that is no more reliable. An even worse unintended
| > consequence -- when a bug was discovered, a company would likely
go| > out of business leaving nobody and nothing to maintain the
software.| Not only that, it would destroy some commercial software
vendors. Let's| say that company a buys software from vendor b.
Company a misuses that| software, and sues company b. Even though a
misused the software, they| can end up costing company b a large
amount of money just to defend| itself. Cessna stopped producing light
single engine aircraft because of| this. not because there was
anything wrong with these aircraft (They had| never lost a suit), but
because of the cost of defending themselves. +---------------

Piper, not Cessna. And it went bankrupt, not just "stopped producing
light singles". That's why the current successor company is called
"The NEW Piper Aircraft Company". See:

Yes, I am aware that Piper went bankrupt, but they were not on good
financial footing. I was specifically referring to a decision by Cessna
to halt the manufacture of their single engine aircraft because of the
cost of the lawsuits. Cessna also had a much broader base than Piper and
it also produced aircraft for the military. They have since resumed the
manufacture of their single engine aircraft.

 

[Rob Warnock]

+---------------
| I think the story was that Cessna also had problems, even before
| things went under at Piper, and they stopped making 172s and such,
| and just manufactured jets up in Canada.
+---------------

But they restarted again just as soon as the limited-liability law
passed (1997?), which, interestingly enough, applies only to planes
older than 18 years! [Previous law let people sue for so-called
"manufacturing defects" in planes that had been flying successfully
for over 40 years!!]

Relevance to Lisp? Think "software liability"...


-Rob

 

[Christopher C. Stacy]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:42:12 -0500, Rob Warnock ("Rob") writes:

Rob> +---------------
Rob> | I think the story was that Cessna also had problems, even before
Rob> | things went under at Piper, and they stopped making 172s and such,
Rob> | and just manufactured jets up in Canada.
Rob> +---------------

Rob> But they restarted again just as soon as the limited-liability law
Rob> passed (1997?), which, interestingly enough, applies only to planes
Rob> older than 18 years! [Previous law let people sue for so-called
Rob> "manufacturing defects" in planes that had been flying successfully
Rob> for over 40 years!!]

Rob> Relevance to Lisp? Think "software liability"...

I wonder when the Federal Software Administration will start issuing
mandatory ADs for the operating system I'm writing this message on!

There will be a high cost of complying with the monthly ADs:
purchasing the patches and hiring the federally certificated software
mechanic to install them, and inspecting every bit of software on my
computer (and anything I attach to it) and certifying compliance and
compu-worthiness of the system, not to mention all the official paperwork.
But that will be better than having my computer grounded from the Internet!

Maybe they should start with the software in the car (engine, dash,
navigation, communication, and entertainment), though.

Of course, nobody would be programming without their federally issued
Programmer's Certificate and the current federal Mental Health
Certification documentation in their posession.

--Chris

(ATP-ME L/W)
Advanced Technology Programmer
Lisp
Multi-Engine LAN/Wireless

 

[Rob Warnock]

+---------------
| Rob Warnock ("Rob") writes:
| Rob> | I think the story was that Cessna also had problems...
|
| Rob> But they restarted again just as soon as the limited-liability law
| Rob> passed ...
|
| Rob> Relevance to Lisp? Think "software liability".
|
| I wonder when the Federal Software Administration will start issuing
| mandatory ADs for the operating system I'm writing this message on!
|
| There will be a high cost of complying with the monthly ADs:
| purchasing the patches and hiring the federally certificated software
| mechanic to install them, and inspecting every bit of software on my
| computer (and anything I attach to it) and certifying compliance and
| compu-worthiness of the system, not to mention all the official paperwork.
| But that will be better than having my computer grounded from the Internet!
....
| Of course, nobody would be programming without their federally issued
| Programmer's Certificate and the current federal Mental Health
| Certification documentation in their posession.
+---------------

Yes, *exactly* the sorts of issues the software industry should be
worrying about!! ;-} ;-}

To stretch the analogy a bit more: Of course, if you *do* have your
federally issued Programmer's Certificate and a current federal Mental
Health Certificate, and you *own* your own computer, then you might
be allowed to to certain "non-critical" pieces of maintainance, such
as add or delete a user, change an email alias, etc., but for *anything*
else -- especially anything that might affect the Digital Rights Management
Kernel or the Security Kernel -- you'd still have to get your sysadmin
work done by a federally certificated software mechanic.


-Rob

p.s. Spoiler for non-pilots: Aircraft owners are allowed to do a few
really minor maintainance tasks themselves, such as adjust tire pressures,
add or change engine oil, or change externally-accessible light bulbs
or fuses. But that's about all...