This goes for everyone...
Only in software can you find a known defect and
then have to pay for the "upgrade" to fix the
bug.
EC wants software makers held liable for code
Summary
Software companies could be held responsible for the security and efficacy of their products, if a new European Commission consumer protection proposal becomes law.
Topics
Software companies could be held responsible for the security and efficacy of their products, if a new European Commission consumer protection proposal becomes law.
Commissioners Viviane Reding and Meglena Kuneva have proposed that EU consumer protections for physical products be extended to software. The suggested change in the law is part of an EU action agenda put forward by the commissioners after identifying gaps in EU consumer protection rules.
A priority area for possible EU action is "extending the principles of consumer protection rules to cover licensing agreements of products like software downloaded for virus protection, games or other licensed content", according to the commissioners' agenda. "Licensing should guarantee consumers the same basic rights as when they purchase a good: the right to get a product that works with fair commercial conditions."
EU consumer commissioner Kuneva said that more accountability for software makers, and for companies providing digital services, would lead to greater consumer choice.
"If we want consumers to shop around and exploit the potential of digital communications, then we need to give them confidence that their rights are guaranteed," said Kuneva. "That means putting in place and enforcing clear consumer rights that meet the high standards already existing in the main street. [The] internet has everything to offer consumers, but we need to build trust so that people can shop around with peace of mind."
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which represents the interests of software makers including Apple, IBM and Microsoft, criticized the proposals.
"Digital content is not a tangible good and should not be subject to the same liability rules as toasters," BSA director of public policy Francisco Mingorance told ZDNet UK on Thursday. "Unlike tangible goods, creators of digital content cannot predict with a high degree of certainty both the product's anticipated uses and its potential performance."
Mingorance said the performance of a piece of software depends on the environment it operates in, how the code is updated, whether it is possible to adapt and modify the software, and whether the code is attacked.
According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software.
Right now, under the current EU Sales and Guarantees Directive, physical products are expected to carry a guarantee of two years. Extending those terms to software would have the effect of limiting customer choice, as contract terms would have to be extended to a minimum of two years, Mingorance added.
"Extending the scope would force the businesses to maintain update services for such contracts beyond the contractual term and ultimately limit the choice of offers," the BSA director said. "It is like renting your house for a summer month and being then obliged to extend the rent for another 23 months."
In addition, Mingorance said that extending consumer regulation to software could lead to less interoperability between software products, as manufacturers might decide to limit how far third-party developers could access their code.
Software companies have long argued against accepting responsibility for the security and efficiency of their code. Linux kernel developer Alan Cox in 2007 told a House of Lords Committee that neither proprietary nor open-source developers should be held accountable for their code.
This article was originally posted on ZDNet UK.
Just In
Right.. Who imported what into the EU?!?!
"According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software."
Beta products? You've got to be kidding.. I LIKE getting to play games for free before most people. But if you play a beta, it's going to be fairly risky given that it's development code. It isn't the nice and shiny code the masses get to use. Applying the bill to this would mean companies couldn't offer betas to the general public.
Open source could be funny.. Try to sue Slackware.. There is no one developer so it'd be kinda hard. Open source means you don't get 24hr tech support you can ring up. But you can play with it.
It's kinda dodgy for MS though. I surf some of the shadowy areas of the net. And a new version of Windows coming out is like a Jew walking into Palestine on a major muslim festival. It's scary. There's viruses ready to go before Windows hits the shops. Based on the beta, then just modifed slightly.
One major flaw in the bill is that there is no distinction between criminal modifying of the code and manufacturer errors. So if someone released a virus, does that mean people get to sue MS, Apple, Linux (FSW?) for getting that virus? It's not really that specific.. Which leads onto my next point.
@All the people crowing over how MS is going to get it.
Put it like this.. MS makes security a large feature of their development process. Apple hasn't even heard of the term. My guess would be that MS would get off if someone virused Windows. Apple would get pretty hard.
Apple have just started (within this year) reccomending the usage of an antivirus program and a firewall. So it's a reallllly bad bill for them if malware is included.
@wessonjoe
"there have always been, and will always be, unforeseeable circumstances where the code will fail"
"as long as i have been given a chance to provide a fix in a reasonable amount of time, i should not be punished for the oversight.
(regardless of the business impact of the failure)"
That's the thing. Given how the EU is going at the moment, they're just as likely to make it an across the board "insta kill" if a bug is found in software. And really.. MS and Apple have been going at it for decades and still come up with bugs. What chance do soft devs have who -only- worked on a program for 2 years? I say we start a petiton to stop the EU from it's powertrip. Opening the door for a user to sue you for messing with the software is not my idea of a fun career. Regardless of how cool coding is.
@Tom Espiner
You're on a reasonably large site. Mind flaming the EU for us?
Suing MS for including IE with Windows and making it legal for people to sue software developers after messing with a program is just wrong. And I want to play my betas.
Beta products? You've got to be kidding.. I LIKE getting to play games for free before most people. But if you play a beta, it's going to be fairly risky given that it's development code. It isn't the nice and shiny code the masses get to use. Applying the bill to this would mean companies couldn't offer betas to the general public.
Open source could be funny.. Try to sue Slackware.. There is no one developer so it'd be kinda hard. Open source means you don't get 24hr tech support you can ring up. But you can play with it.
It's kinda dodgy for MS though. I surf some of the shadowy areas of the net. And a new version of Windows coming out is like a Jew walking into Palestine on a major muslim festival. It's scary. There's viruses ready to go before Windows hits the shops. Based on the beta, then just modifed slightly.
One major flaw in the bill is that there is no distinction between criminal modifying of the code and manufacturer errors. So if someone released a virus, does that mean people get to sue MS, Apple, Linux (FSW?) for getting that virus? It's not really that specific.. Which leads onto my next point.
@All the people crowing over how MS is going to get it.
Put it like this.. MS makes security a large feature of their development process. Apple hasn't even heard of the term. My guess would be that MS would get off if someone virused Windows. Apple would get pretty hard.
Apple have just started (within this year) reccomending the usage of an antivirus program and a firewall. So it's a reallllly bad bill for them if malware is included.
@wessonjoe
"there have always been, and will always be, unforeseeable circumstances where the code will fail"
"as long as i have been given a chance to provide a fix in a reasonable amount of time, i should not be punished for the oversight.
(regardless of the business impact of the failure)"
That's the thing. Given how the EU is going at the moment, they're just as likely to make it an across the board "insta kill" if a bug is found in software. And really.. MS and Apple have been going at it for decades and still come up with bugs. What chance do soft devs have who -only- worked on a program for 2 years? I say we start a petiton to stop the EU from it's powertrip. Opening the door for a user to sue you for messing with the software is not my idea of a fun career. Regardless of how cool coding is.
@Tom Espiner
You're on a reasonably large site. Mind flaming the EU for us?
Suing MS for including IE with Windows and making it legal for people to sue software developers after messing with a program is just wrong. And I want to play my betas.
I have never had to pay for an upgrade to fix a bug in any software I have owned or managed. Not sure what you are buying, but thats not right at all and I would not buy from them again. I think this is too dependent on situations outside of the software makers control to be a successful program. Maybe if you were selling software to only people that had great computing practices, but we all know that is not the case by far. In theory its a great idea, but in reality is not at all.
There are numerous bugs, holes, etc in, say NT,
98, etc that will never be fixed.
There are many bugs, issues, etc in Office that
go unfixed only to be fixed "in the next
version".
Heck, you can even look at Apple, SAP, etc. for
evidence of this.
98, etc that will never be fixed.
There are many bugs, issues, etc in Office that
go unfixed only to be fixed "in the next
version".
Heck, you can even look at Apple, SAP, etc. for
evidence of this.
Your post was a shot at microsoft and then you try to cover it up with even evidence of this from Apple and SAP. You could probably make your statement for just about any software in the world. My main concern is if the product is doing what I need it to do. Every product has a bug at sometime, I don't care what it is, but I never had a bug that wasn't fixed stand in my way of doing what I needed the software to do. I never had to go buy the upgraded product to get the fix and I am sure many others out there have the same exact experience? But thats just my experience.
I don't have to patch the computer in my car -
it starts each and every time.
I don't have to patch my DVD player - it works.
Software should be the same thing....
it starts each and every time.
I don't have to patch my DVD player - it works.
Software should be the same thing....
You should present things in the correct context. That woiuld be for Cars, you should talk about maintenance. If you didn't change the oil and do regular maintenance, it will not continue to start "Every time"
But furthermore, and more importantly, allow me a simple example of how misleading and actually just plain wrong your argument is.
I bought a Honda Accord in 1995 and I think it's safe to say they are known for quality, the CD player had to be replaced immediately after I found out it didn't work. Even more distressing was that I had to bring the thing in for about a dozen recall items over the first few years, that in some cases were BUGS that could cause the car to EXPLODE, shutdown or cause a fire, if not repaired.
Want to try again?
But furthermore, and more importantly, allow me a simple example of how misleading and actually just plain wrong your argument is.
I bought a Honda Accord in 1995 and I think it's safe to say they are known for quality, the CD player had to be replaced immediately after I found out it didn't work. Even more distressing was that I had to bring the thing in for about a dozen recall items over the first few years, that in some cases were BUGS that could cause the car to EXPLODE, shutdown or cause a fire, if not repaired.
Want to try again?
Often a piece of software will have a known bug and the company will
issue a "workaround". Basically, it's just a series of steps that allow you
to get around the bug. The company hasn't fixed the bug, but they've
forced you to work around the bug. Adobe and Macromedia come to
mind, but Apple and Microsoft do engage in this sort of thing as well.
Oftentimes, but not always, the next paid upgrade will fix the bug, but
you have to pay for that. I've seen this many times so I don't think any
specific examples are required to make the case.
issue a "workaround". Basically, it's just a series of steps that allow you
to get around the bug. The company hasn't fixed the bug, but they've
forced you to work around the bug. Adobe and Macromedia come to
mind, but Apple and Microsoft do engage in this sort of thing as well.
Oftentimes, but not always, the next paid upgrade will fix the bug, but
you have to pay for that. I've seen this many times so I don't think any
specific examples are required to make the case.
So because you had a problem with car in 1995, this guys post is wrong. You, my friend, are arrogant and conceited. His point could have been easily made about cd players or dvd players or microwave ovens of any hardware that requires control software or an OS. How about not being so 'clever' and showing people a little bit of respect.
where he, of course, throws the main dig at MS.
Sorry but doesn't even the MS haters club get tired of that?
Anyway, this is not just a software phenomenon. There have been thousands of suits against manufacturers for defective parts that are non computer related. It's too subjective to claim whether they were on purpose or not.
The car analogy is still a bad one. And I'm just pointing this out, unlike what "Bored" had to say, that car recalls are very very common. Perhaps bored has never owned a new car, or he's really special and has never had one with a recall. Recalls have been issued for everything from autos to toys. Someone is liable.
This would be like calling for all engineering to be responsible for every product ever manufactured on this earth that required engineering. That is my point and singling out software developers is asinine. The EU has shown how asinine government can be many times in the past though, so it's not a surprise.
Sorry but doesn't even the MS haters club get tired of that?
Anyway, this is not just a software phenomenon. There have been thousands of suits against manufacturers for defective parts that are non computer related. It's too subjective to claim whether they were on purpose or not.
The car analogy is still a bad one. And I'm just pointing this out, unlike what "Bored" had to say, that car recalls are very very common. Perhaps bored has never owned a new car, or he's really special and has never had one with a recall. Recalls have been issued for everything from autos to toys. Someone is liable.
This would be like calling for all engineering to be responsible for every product ever manufactured on this earth that required engineering. That is my point and singling out software developers is asinine. The EU has shown how asinine government can be many times in the past though, so it's not a surprise.
civility in your posts. The OP had a string of posts. He dings MS, as I said to Jack, and it's tiring.
But my point was no aimed at being "clever" and I don't ever even consider the idea of being "clever" when I post. Nor do I try to be offensive or hurtful or hate filled or radical or religiously fervent.
You are talking about the I hate MS club when that level of emotion and hate and anger are contained in a post. Try telling them off. (like you would).
I'll repeat my point. All products, software or not, have defects. Recalls are VERY common, even if you've not had a car that was recalled. That was one example. every car we've owned has had at least one recall. Most all new cars do in the first 2 or 3 years...or more. You are trying to say I was purposely being "clever" with that?
You need to get out. Do you have a job and a car? Never a recall? Never owned a product or heard of products with recalls? There are toys being recalled all of the time and not just those made in china.
AGain, my point is if software makers are to be punished for bugs, then every product maker should be punished. And if it's the developers as the scapegoats for software, then it's the engineers are architects for other "hard" goods when they fail. Why not?
It's the same damn thing.
The EU displays a lack of common sense far too often IMHO.
But my point was no aimed at being "clever" and I don't ever even consider the idea of being "clever" when I post. Nor do I try to be offensive or hurtful or hate filled or radical or religiously fervent.
You are talking about the I hate MS club when that level of emotion and hate and anger are contained in a post. Try telling them off. (like you would).
I'll repeat my point. All products, software or not, have defects. Recalls are VERY common, even if you've not had a car that was recalled. That was one example. every car we've owned has had at least one recall. Most all new cars do in the first 2 or 3 years...or more. You are trying to say I was purposely being "clever" with that?
You need to get out. Do you have a job and a car? Never a recall? Never owned a product or heard of products with recalls? There are toys being recalled all of the time and not just those made in china.
AGain, my point is if software makers are to be punished for bugs, then every product maker should be punished. And if it's the developers as the scapegoats for software, then it's the engineers are architects for other "hard" goods when they fail. Why not?
It's the same damn thing.
The EU displays a lack of common sense far too often IMHO.
Your DVD player and engine managemnt computer are dedicated appliances. Closed systems that are tasked with doing specific jobs. They don't also have to route your mail, run your webserver, talk to an Oracle database, defrag large multiterrabyte disks, mount small 2MB flashdrives, play .aac .m4a .mp3 .ogg .avi .mov .qt files in what ever player you choose. It doesn't have to secure your banking, provide protection to other software running in the car, manage the network, provide a rich complex GUI etc.
Are you referring to your thinking. Not everyone's car or DVD player starts every time. Also, if someone smashes your car or dvd player it may stop working. This proposal must come from an inexperienced person or an idiot. This could lead to software manufacturers having to take strict controls on how you use their software in oder to ensure proper operation. Ah, you were surfing dangerous areas. No longer covered. no more updates.
I my car I had O2 Sensor that kept failing. I took it in and the sensor was fine but the chip wasn't registering it right. So they flashed the chip with newer version of the software.
An older DVD player I had to download patch, burn it CD then run it in my DVD player. This was to fix a problem with some commercial DVDs that the player couldn't read.
An older DVD player I had to download patch, burn it CD then run it in my DVD player. This was to fix a problem with some commercial DVDs that the player couldn't read.
No so much in practice.
Using the toaster analogy, would you expect the toaster to work underwater? How about a US toaster taken to Europe or Japan? Oh, and what do you mean this toaster can't handle bagels? It's a toaster, innit?
Oh, some SOB used a *toaster* to smash open my car window! Quick, sue General Electric for making a dangerous product! I bet that thing could *kill* somebody if you hit them with it...
Most significant software starts at a line count of at least 100,000 lines of code. Now lets say there's a law that says developers are responsible for software security flaws.
I create a new program and market it, using best security practices. It's immune to every known security hack.
Then a week after it goes on sale some twisted genius comes up with a bizarre *new* attack nobody ever heard of. It's brilliant, and cuts through most security like swiss cheese.
Should I be responsible because I didn't forsee a mad genius's new hack? According to this proposed law I would be.
How's that fair again? Of course such a law would favor big corporations, who could afford the massive testing you'll need to comply. Guess who's now screwed?
Open source, for one. The little mom and pop shops for another. Individual programmers who can't possibly afford the efforts required.
Oh, and innovation? Forget it. Everybody's too busy locking things down, pulling *out* features that are too hard to secure.
Best practice, security wise. If a feature's *NOT* there you can't attack it. Make developers responsible for security breaches and that's exactly what they'll do. It's what *I* would do, and I'm a developer.
Of course, programs will be *very* secure. They'll cost 5 times as much, be delivered in 10 years as opposed to 6 months, and not do a whole lot--but by God you won't be able to break them with a sledgehammer!
That the software landscape you want?
Using the toaster analogy, would you expect the toaster to work underwater? How about a US toaster taken to Europe or Japan? Oh, and what do you mean this toaster can't handle bagels? It's a toaster, innit?
Oh, some SOB used a *toaster* to smash open my car window! Quick, sue General Electric for making a dangerous product! I bet that thing could *kill* somebody if you hit them with it...
Most significant software starts at a line count of at least 100,000 lines of code. Now lets say there's a law that says developers are responsible for software security flaws.
I create a new program and market it, using best security practices. It's immune to every known security hack.
Then a week after it goes on sale some twisted genius comes up with a bizarre *new* attack nobody ever heard of. It's brilliant, and cuts through most security like swiss cheese.
Should I be responsible because I didn't forsee a mad genius's new hack? According to this proposed law I would be.
How's that fair again? Of course such a law would favor big corporations, who could afford the massive testing you'll need to comply. Guess who's now screwed?
Open source, for one. The little mom and pop shops for another. Individual programmers who can't possibly afford the efforts required.
Oh, and innovation? Forget it. Everybody's too busy locking things down, pulling *out* features that are too hard to secure.
Best practice, security wise. If a feature's *NOT* there you can't attack it. Make developers responsible for security breaches and that's exactly what they'll do. It's what *I* would do, and I'm a developer.
Of course, programs will be *very* secure. They'll cost 5 times as much, be delivered in 10 years as opposed to 6 months, and not do a whole lot--but by God you won't be able to break them with a sledgehammer!
That the software landscape you want?
Guess who's now screwed?
Open source, for one. The little mom and pop shops for another. Individual programmers who can't possibly afford the efforts required.
Nope, FOSS can not be technically held accountable because you got a free product and the contributors can't control how their software will be used and reused.
It is the proprietary companies that have to lose a lot.
Open source, for one. The little mom and pop shops for another. Individual programmers who can't possibly afford the efforts required.
Nope, FOSS can not be technically held accountable because you got a free product and the contributors can't control how their software will be used and reused.
It is the proprietary companies that have to lose a lot.
Proprietary companies can't control how people will use their software, no more than toaster companies can.
However, FOSS *won't* be excluded, especially if/when FOSS becomes an important component of the software eco-system.
You know how lawsuit-happy people can be. How'd you like to be on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit--or worse, a DOJ lawsuit? (Should this law eventually make its way into US law-makers heads).
Don't think it can't happen, because it easily could.
However, FOSS *won't* be excluded, especially if/when FOSS becomes an important component of the software eco-system.
You know how lawsuit-happy people can be. How'd you like to be on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit--or worse, a DOJ lawsuit? (Should this law eventually make its way into US law-makers heads).
Don't think it can't happen, because it easily could.
...but, believe it or not, individuals in the EU are generally less litigeous. Litigation is mainly B2B.
the company building the toaster is liable.
Free does not get you off the hook of a lwasuit:
If your product contributes to someone's loss, then your company will be in court.
Plus, proprietary companies cannot control how their software will be used and reused
Free does not get you off the hook of a lwasuit:
If your product contributes to someone's loss, then your company will be in court.
Plus, proprietary companies cannot control how their software will be used and reused
after the delvelopers even FOSS will be gone after the first couple of developers get held accountable then the rest will be running scared.
At my site, we pay for quite a lot of "Free Software"
We pay for maintenance and updates on system based on Centos, which uses a MySQL database, we pay for VMWare which contains a Redhat based service console, and can read and write NFS drives, and uses many free GNU utilities along with the proprietary VMWare commands.
However, there should be a basic fit-for-purpose test, but then I test drive all the cars I intend to buy, and I trial any software I intend to buy. If the vendor is still around after two years, I would expect patches, support and udates.
(my Ford Mondeo had a recall for an earthing strap fault, was fixed at the next service for nothing) I can subscribe to updates for Vista and it gets patched, and my betbook as Ubuntu LTS, so I will get pathces on it for three years. All currently better than what the EU is asking for.
We pay for maintenance and updates on system based on Centos, which uses a MySQL database, we pay for VMWare which contains a Redhat based service console, and can read and write NFS drives, and uses many free GNU utilities along with the proprietary VMWare commands.
However, there should be a basic fit-for-purpose test, but then I test drive all the cars I intend to buy, and I trial any software I intend to buy. If the vendor is still around after two years, I would expect patches, support and udates.
(my Ford Mondeo had a recall for an earthing strap fault, was fixed at the next service for nothing) I can subscribe to updates for Vista and it gets patched, and my betbook as Ubuntu LTS, so I will get pathces on it for three years. All currently better than what the EU is asking for.
Once again, "free software" as in Open Source does NOT mean free as in no cost or free beer, as the saying goes. It often does but not necessarily so. It means free as in speech. There's a fundamental difference that you are failing to understand.
BTW, CentOS does NOT charge for updates, they are free as in no cost as are MySQL updates (at least until we see what Oracle will do). What you probably being charged for is support for those products, which is entirely different from updates.
BTW, CentOS does NOT charge for updates, they are free as in no cost as are MySQL updates (at least until we see what Oracle will do). What you probably being charged for is support for those products, which is entirely different from updates.
Until someone loose critical data, or a power outage that causes a botched operation in surgery. The culprit was a piece of open source software. Think someone won't pay?
yet seem unable to control the quality of their products and services, I think they can take the hit too. Their products cost enough as it is and, despite laying off people, they continue to make "record profits". Obviously, getting rid of QC, in-house testing because it's cheaper to make us all beta testers for their RTM versions of their software... *sigh* Can't people see the obvious?
If they were responsible in the first place, maybe the EU wouldn't have needed to start acting this way.
Aren't we all supposed to be responsible, pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, and the usual gibber that in reality is more a pathetic double-standard?
If they were responsible in the first place, maybe the EU wouldn't have needed to start acting this way.
Aren't we all supposed to be responsible, pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps, and the usual gibber that in reality is more a pathetic double-standard?
When people like you continue to post this type of thing about one company and never mentioning IBM, for instance, who rakes in even more than MS, or GOOG, or APPLE who Brags about having 26 Billion in the bank and no debt (if that were MS, you'd say they charge too much, but it's Apple so it's okay, right? ).
That is the double standard. All products and even FOSS code which is copyrighted and must be held accountable, has huge problems. Are you not subscribed to any Vuln services or sites?
If you were, you'd see that Linux and Linux based OSes are getting patched almost daily.
A patch means there was an error to begin with. wow they sure seem to have a lot of them.
I'm not serious about that last statement, but this double standard of attacking MS and only MS is as bad as anything you could come up with about MS. It's code has given businesses the opportunity to build competitive edges with their tools, which is what software really is.
That is the double standard. All products and even FOSS code which is copyrighted and must be held accountable, has huge problems. Are you not subscribed to any Vuln services or sites?
If you were, you'd see that Linux and Linux based OSes are getting patched almost daily.
A patch means there was an error to begin with. wow they sure seem to have a lot of them.
I'm not serious about that last statement, but this double standard of attacking MS and only MS is as bad as anything you could come up with about MS. It's code has given businesses the opportunity to build competitive edges with their tools, which is what software really is.
Microsoft has always just rushed incomplete products to market and relied on huge marketing campaigns to try to bend the consumers minds to "this is how it is", rather than release wonderful stable OS's.
The implementation will be flexible, let's not forget that. But it's great, because it puts the onus on the developers to write proper code and test properly.
Actually, it's really only going to hurt the Microsoft's of this world, because they'll no longer be able to profit from selling the version that has the fixes after duping the consumers into buying the pre-alpha one.
The implementation will be flexible, let's not forget that. But it's great, because it puts the onus on the developers to write proper code and test properly.
Actually, it's really only going to hurt the Microsoft's of this world, because they'll no longer be able to profit from selling the version that has the fixes after duping the consumers into buying the pre-alpha one.
-Chrome major security hole patch fixed
-Firefox patched several security holes
-Apple OSX email worm working it's way around.
-Open source - last person to send out an update burden's the responsibility of the bug.
To make an asinine statement like "Actually, it's really only going to hurt the Microsoft's of this world..." it totally clueless. It would effect everyone that writes software. It's like Jaguar is responsible for letting a thief break a window to get in your car and steal it...The window was not shatter proof. You just now priced Jaqs completely out of the market. It's ludicrous
It just shows the continued ignorance of the EU/EC.
-Firefox patched several security holes
-Apple OSX email worm working it's way around.
-Open source - last person to send out an update burden's the responsibility of the bug.
To make an asinine statement like "Actually, it's really only going to hurt the Microsoft's of this world..." it totally clueless. It would effect everyone that writes software. It's like Jaguar is responsible for letting a thief break a window to get in your car and steal it...The window was not shatter proof. You just now priced Jaqs completely out of the market. It's ludicrous
It just shows the continued ignorance of the EU/EC.
Amen wolf_z.
Although I would say it will cost 5 times more, take 10 years to deliver, and still have a few bugs.
Although I would say it will cost 5 times more, take 10 years to deliver, and still have a few bugs.
Your analogy of this software liability issue perfectly fits the "hate crimes" laws now under "discussion" (ha! it's a done deal) in the U.S. The "hate crimes" laws would make a pastor liable for a crime against a homosexual if someone heard him say "homosexuality is a choice and not genetic and therefore a sin" and then this other person goes out and hurts a homosexual "because of it."
My point: this software liability will most certainly come to U.S. shores. This is just one more example of how government is quickly becoming all encompassing, stripping us of our Bill of Rights freedoms, and merging into a One World Entity.
The end result of "hate crimes" laws is the same as the software landscape you project: no one will say anything for fear of prosecuting, freedom of speech is effectively eliminated, these blogs will be taken down and there will be no more "free marketplace of ideas" because the socialist thought-control police would make the U.S. worse than China.
My point: this software liability will most certainly come to U.S. shores. This is just one more example of how government is quickly becoming all encompassing, stripping us of our Bill of Rights freedoms, and merging into a One World Entity.
The end result of "hate crimes" laws is the same as the software landscape you project: no one will say anything for fear of prosecuting, freedom of speech is effectively eliminated, these blogs will be taken down and there will be no more "free marketplace of ideas" because the socialist thought-control police would make the U.S. worse than China.
I think its high time Programmers take responsibility for their work.
They are professionals and should work so that their software is of high quality and they should be punished if they distribute bugy softwares.
I have heard just 2 days back a Civil Engineer imprisoned because of negligence in his part as the building that he planned and constructed collapsed.
I've heard of Pilots being imprisoned/and stripped off of their license due to minor incidents.
I've heard of soldiers imprisoned by just firing in the air indiscriminately for fun.
Almost all professionals can be imprisoned if they do some lousy work.
Programmers are professionals and should also be punished if they've done a lousy product. period.
Why did humans realised this just now? maybe an ex-programmer is already a new board member in EC.
Attacking a software I think is a different thing, just like attacking some structures (building/aircrafts etc), in this case the attacker will be punished.
They are professionals and should work so that their software is of high quality and they should be punished if they distribute bugy softwares.
I have heard just 2 days back a Civil Engineer imprisoned because of negligence in his part as the building that he planned and constructed collapsed.
I've heard of Pilots being imprisoned/and stripped off of their license due to minor incidents.
I've heard of soldiers imprisoned by just firing in the air indiscriminately for fun.
Almost all professionals can be imprisoned if they do some lousy work.
Programmers are professionals and should also be punished if they've done a lousy product. period.
Why did humans realised this just now? maybe an ex-programmer is already a new board member in EC.
Attacking a software I think is a different thing, just like attacking some structures (building/aircrafts etc), in this case the attacker will be punished.
... as we know it. General computing would be massively curtailed - e.g. you would no longer be able to install applications on your PC. (I'm not sure the PC industry would be able to survive.) It would probably also kill the World Wide Web in Europe as well. In short, the only software which would be able to survive, are software associated with highly controlled, proprietary, closed systems, and these systems' prices would skyrocket to the kind of prices people were used to before the PC industry emerged. In other words the law would devastate the consumer market - the very market the law is intended to serve.
If this law passes, it WILL destroy the software industry in Europe.
Another law with a good intent but BAD consequences in reality.
Another law with a good intent but BAD consequences in reality.
to what we're seeing now.
Change your name to hypnotized. You have been drinking way too much of the coolaid.
The totalitarian socialist mindset of Europe is has led to this kind of legislation even being considered.
The cure for bad or foolish business practices is to buy other products. Think of it as evolution in action.
The cure for bad or foolish business practices is to buy other products. Think of it as evolution in action.
your favorite OS now costs $60,000 (liability insurance) and can only be ran on approved hardwae. What a deal...
... that you buy Microsoft.
Even someone as limited as you knows that much.
Rupert is getting irritated, and starts calling names.
Here, take a biscuit and some tea and - some rest... yes...
Here, take a biscuit and some tea and - some rest... yes...
Or have mommy read it to you.
You just described Wintel. Thanks!
But even someone as slow as you should be able to see that.
That is why Apple cost 3x what a pc does.
In the U.S., at one time, it was well-known that liability insurance costs drove up the cost of medicine. It's hardly talked about anymore, what with universal non-healthcare on the horizon.
A key difference would be that these software laws are new, whereas in healthcare the laws already existed, but it took a while for increasing numbers of graduating ambulance chasers to hit the fan. Too many bottomfeeding "doctors" of jurisprudence willing to do anything for a buck. Add a bit of willful negligence, and...
Hey can anyone tell me where to fill a Vioxx 'scrip around here?
:o)
Hey can anyone tell me where to fill a Vioxx 'scrip around here?
:o)
Move all the download servers out of Yurp, and add the following clickthrough disclaimer, or some such ambulance chasing boilerplate:
"This software is not intended to be compiled, installed or executed in any country that is a member of the EC. The consequences of any such use are the sole responsibility of the user."
I'm guessing the furriners would still download it.
:o)
"This software is not intended to be compiled, installed or executed in any country that is a member of the EC. The consequences of any such use are the sole responsibility of the user."
I'm guessing the furriners would still download it.
:o)
in mobile phones its common for vendors/carriers to wash there hands of known issues and wont replace the phone because of it and then use the same faulty software on the next phone and still not fix it.
This clause already exists in most consumer protection legislation. In the
case of New Zealand our consumer protection requires that the product
works as intended and any faults that are found have to be fixed within a
reasonable time period. Basically the problem is that the existing laws
include too many loop holes which one can get through.
case of New Zealand our consumer protection requires that the product
works as intended and any faults that are found have to be fixed within a
reasonable time period. Basically the problem is that the existing laws
include too many loop holes which one can get through.
So you will pay for the added development effort, testing as well as a longer wait for newer emerging technologies while software companies CYA. "Upgrades"? Typically bugs are corrected through patches, I don't pay upgrade costs for my software. What software are you buying you have to pay "upgrade" costs for?
Either they'll require certain coverage and wonder why the rates skyrocket, or they'll put caps on rates and scramble to repeal the law after insurance companies refuse to renew policies in the state once they expire. California is especially known for the latter.
The point is, you're going to pay one way or another. Which is why I prefer F/OSS, because even though you're going to have to pay someone somewhere down the line, at least you do not have a legally protected vendor lock. That at least give the consumer some sort of recourse.
The point is, you're going to pay one way or another. Which is why I prefer F/OSS, because even though you're going to have to pay someone somewhere down the line, at least you do not have a legally protected vendor lock. That at least give the consumer some sort of recourse.
excused from being held accountable if a trial is lost, or a policy or law introduces unitended or unforeseen outcomes;
If this inadvertently drives software makers out of business (as business that makes poor choices will now blame it all on the software manufacturer, and unleash a rush of frivolous lawsuits) will the EU be held accountable for the unintended consequences of a poory thought out law?
Of course they will not.
If this inadvertently drives software makers out of business (as business that makes poor choices will now blame it all on the software manufacturer, and unleash a rush of frivolous lawsuits) will the EU be held accountable for the unintended consequences of a poory thought out law?
Of course they will not.
"According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software."
Beta products? You've got to be kidding.. I LIKE getting to play games for free before most people. But if you play a beta, it's going to be fairly risky given that it's development code. It isn't the nice and shiny code the masses get to use. Applying the bill to this would mean companies couldn't offer betas to the general public.
Open source could be funny.. Try to sue Slackware.. There is no one developer so it'd be kinda hard. Open source means you don't get 24hr tech support you can ring up. But you can play with it.
It's kinda dodgy for MS though. I surf some of the shadowy areas of the net. And a new version of Windows coming out is like a Jew walking into Palestine on a major muslim festival. It's scary. There's viruses ready to go before Windows hits the shops. Based on the beta, then just modifed slightly.
One major flaw in the bill is that there is no distinction between criminal modifying of the code and manufacturer errors. So if someone released a virus, does that mean people get to sue MS, Apple, Linux (FSW?) for getting that virus? It's not really that specific.. Which leads onto my next point.
@All the people crowing over how MS is going to get it.
Put it like this.. MS makes security a large feature of their development process. Apple hasn't even heard of the term. My guess would be that MS would get off if someone virused Windows. Apple would get pretty hard.
Apple have just started (within this year) reccomending the usage of an antivirus program and a firewall. So it's a reallllly bad bill for them if malware is included.
@wessonjoe
"there have always been, and will always be, unforeseeable circumstances where the code will fail"
"as long as i have been given a chance to provide a fix in a reasonable amount of time, i should not be punished for the oversight.
(regardless of the business impact of the failure)"
That's the thing. Given how the EU is going at the moment, they're just as likely to make it an across the board "insta kill" if a bug is found in software. And really.. MS and Apple have been going at it for decades and still come up with bugs. What chance do soft devs have who -only- worked on a program for 2 years? I say we start a petiton to stop the EU from it's powertrip. Opening the door for a user to sue you for messing with the software is not my idea of a fun career. Regardless of how cool coding is.
@Tom Espiner
You're on a reasonably large site. Mind flaming the EU for us?
Suing MS for including IE with Windows and making it legal for people to sue software developers after messing with a program is just wrong. And I want to play my betas.
Beta products? You've got to be kidding.. I LIKE getting to play games for free before most people. But if you play a beta, it's going to be fairly risky given that it's development code. It isn't the nice and shiny code the masses get to use. Applying the bill to this would mean companies couldn't offer betas to the general public.
Open source could be funny.. Try to sue Slackware.. There is no one developer so it'd be kinda hard. Open source means you don't get 24hr tech support you can ring up. But you can play with it.
It's kinda dodgy for MS though. I surf some of the shadowy areas of the net. And a new version of Windows coming out is like a Jew walking into Palestine on a major muslim festival. It's scary. There's viruses ready to go before Windows hits the shops. Based on the beta, then just modifed slightly.
One major flaw in the bill is that there is no distinction between criminal modifying of the code and manufacturer errors. So if someone released a virus, does that mean people get to sue MS, Apple, Linux (FSW?) for getting that virus? It's not really that specific.. Which leads onto my next point.
@All the people crowing over how MS is going to get it.
Put it like this.. MS makes security a large feature of their development process. Apple hasn't even heard of the term. My guess would be that MS would get off if someone virused Windows. Apple would get pretty hard.
Apple have just started (within this year) reccomending the usage of an antivirus program and a firewall. So it's a reallllly bad bill for them if malware is included.
@wessonjoe
"there have always been, and will always be, unforeseeable circumstances where the code will fail"
"as long as i have been given a chance to provide a fix in a reasonable amount of time, i should not be punished for the oversight.
(regardless of the business impact of the failure)"
That's the thing. Given how the EU is going at the moment, they're just as likely to make it an across the board "insta kill" if a bug is found in software. And really.. MS and Apple have been going at it for decades and still come up with bugs. What chance do soft devs have who -only- worked on a program for 2 years? I say we start a petiton to stop the EU from it's powertrip. Opening the door for a user to sue you for messing with the software is not my idea of a fun career. Regardless of how cool coding is.
@Tom Espiner
You're on a reasonably large site. Mind flaming the EU for us?
Suing MS for including IE with Windows and making it legal for people to sue software developers after messing with a program is just wrong. And I want to play my betas.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
