[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers

Deus Ex Machina vicc at cia.com.au
Tue Aug 15 17:13:27 AEST 2006


Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:46:21PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> > Craig Sanders [cas at taz.net.au] wrote:
> > > why should you (or any free software developer) be liable for the use
> > > that people make of software that you (or they) make freely available?
> > > there is no contract between you - there can't be, as a contract
> > > *requires* value to be exchanged by all parties.
> > 
> > this is false. 
> 
> it's not false. contracts require exchange of value between both
> parties.
> 
> negligence laws aren't, of course, limited only to contractual
> arrangements but free software certainly is not trade or commerce.
> 
> > I was told by a lawyer that this is not the case. you can be liable
> > for stuff you give away for free. otherwise someone could provide you
> > with a free service like for example cleaning your carpets, which
> > completely damages them and you would have no come back.
> >
> > people cant waive all responsibility just by giving stuff away.
> 
> true, but there's a huge difference between giving a free service to a
> particular individual and releasing free software for anyone who cares
> to make the effort to download it.

I cant see how there is any difference. if there was no liability for
free software you could leave viruses and trojans lying around for people
to download with a disclaimer and have no liability.

ianal but I do remember having this very conversation about trade for
stuff you are giving away or not making money on, with a lawyer. he insisted that it
can still be seen as trade by the courts, it made no difference if you
where giving it away or not.

more to the point you are saying a contract that is entirely one sided,
ie only places obligations on one party is not valid. this would imply
that charities have no liability for anything they offer to do. I cant
see any reason why this should be the case.

further I would argue that the developer of free software does obtain a
benefits (ie value) from releasing the software in terms of reputation etc.
ie the more downloads the bigger the reputation. so while it mught be
difficult to measure the value of each download or use, the combined sum
of a lot of downloads does add up to some value for the developer.

it may not be a symetrical exchange of value, but there is clearly some value,
irrespective of how tiny the value is.

either way you cant just disipate all responsibility just because you
give stuff away. nor should you be able to.

Vic




More information about the Link mailing list