[LINK] Identity theft virus infects 10,000 computers

[Rick Welykochy]

--- Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 06:07:25AM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> > I just thought of something in this regard. How would one hold the
> > often multiple and disconnected creators of a FOSS product to account
> > for their security blunders?  It is easy enough to target and take
> > action against a particular software company. Much harder to target
> > individuals across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
> 
> 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.
> 
> a user of free software receives value, but the developer does not.  no
> contract.
> 
> furthermore, a gift (to the world, or to an individual) is not commerce,
> it is not trade - so it's hard to see how it could possibly be covered
> by trade practices type legislation.

I did not suggest that such legislation would be made in the area of
contract law. As a matter of fact, I did not mention what form or area of
law the legislation would take.

IF there were such legislation, I think it could be more difficult to enforce
in the area of FOSS.

Considerations (no pun!) about contract law aside, legislation that ensured
the safety and security of software could be enacted outside of the area of
commercial law, simply to protect the major stakeholder involved: society at
large.

Currently, the dollar total of losses and expenses due to shoddy software
and security break-ins (think zombie boes for example) on Microsoft systems
must run into the $$$ BILLIONS for businesses and individuals combined.
Society would benefit as a whole if Mickeysoft were forced by law to provide
more secure software.

Now, how such a law fits FOSS is quite debatable. Perhaps the law would apply
to the copyright holder(s) of the software in any case.

If you think that producing free (as in beer) software would exempt the copyright
holder from liability under such a law, think again.

There is already sufficient precedent for safety-related issues in society that
fall far beyond the confines of contract law and the exchange of goods and
services for some sort of consideration. One example that comes to mind is 
the responsibility of a property owner to provide safe access through their
property, even though that property is private. If someone slips and breaks
a hip on your footpath, you are liable. If a child falls into your swimming
pool and drowns, you are responsible. No contract, no consideration. I am sure
some of the legal eagles on Link could come up with many more examples of where
safety and security are legal issues that fall far beyond the area of contract
law.

cheers
rickw



		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Coming soon: Celebrity Survivor - 11 celebrities, 25 days, unlimited drama 
http://au.yahoo.com/celebrity-survivor/