“The first thing we do,” said the character in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, is “kill all the lawyers.”
InfoWorld reports that lawyers want to be able to sue software developers for shipping software that is not perfect. Even free and open source software.
It’s such a bogus idea that even Microsoft and the Linux Foundation agree…..
Here’s an odd couple: Microsoft and the Linux Foundation. These two organizations, normally on opposite sides of almost any issue, agree that a new set of guidelines making software vendors liable for knowingly shipping buggy software is badly off base.
Filed under:
Op-Ed
RE: The Lawyers want to take over Quality Control ?
Pingback from The Lawyers want to take over Quality Control ? : Misfit Geek
This is a rather scary development. I have written a couple of little programs that I offer for free to registered, also free, members of my web site. If I could be sued for some bug that evaded my testing then I’d be very unlikely to offer such software in the future.
Bryan and all, this is not worry much. It is a safety required and enforced by law. See, the statement is simple, if you distribute buggy software willingly/knowingly, you may be at risk of handling legal force.
"The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts," is particularly drawing fire. It states that parties who receive payment for software "warrants to any party in the normal chain of distribution that the software contains no material hidden defects of which the transferor was aware at the time of the transfer."
This will make all developer responsible to adhere to quality and not rush for release….
Would a person or organization still be liable if the product came with a list of "known issues"? Part of the Software Contract states that these bugs are "hidden defects".
Also where does Beta software fall? If they are exempt I doubt companies like Google would ever bring their products out of Beta
Perhaps this is where the IWOMM (It Works On My Machine) certification comes in. If we certify that this software works on my machine for my specific purposes, maybe we could be exempt.
Here’s another thought: Maybe the IT industry can handle this if it is supported by a) being able to charge more for software (say, an increase from $50 to about $5,000 per license) and b) being insured against law suits. Of course, that might mean fewer people buying the software, so the price might need to climb to $10,000 or $20,000 to compensate for that. And, with fewer customers, we could expect fewer law suits…
the countries that have these kinds of laws in place will be at an economic competitive disadvantage of,
1) having less software available in that country for business and individuals
2) software being exceedingly costly as creating bug free software means more development & testing = more cost$ to pass to the consumer.
In light of the current recession woes what country would want to pass laws to kick its own economy in the guts? Lawyers can be very greedy people.
I wonder what OS the lawyers will be using…Windows? Erm…has bugs…linux?…again bugs…MAC OS?…bugs again….all need updates…everyone gets to sue everybody….COOOOOOOOOOOL :D:D
Why only developer why not the Quality people and the company as a whole :P.
The concept seems fine, but it all depend on the implementation and stuff..
3123kjkss sdffgsg
sdfff kjj
sdferfff >
How would one justify willingly/knowingly. No one would say that he had shipped his software with a bug.
Generally bug is some unwanted behaviour in the s/w which might have missed out by the developers/testers.
My curiosity with regards to this endeavor is "defining software". This could easily turn into a mom-and-pop shop be sued because their website crashed in the middle of a transaction? Could JoeShmoe-iPhone-app developer be sued because his app didn’t perform as advertised?
This could easily morph into something akin to the medical industry; its not worth being a doctor because trying to help somebody will get you sued.
And seriously, not kidding here — if I think that there’s even a small chance that one of my freeware apps could land me in court, I’d keep them ALL to myself.
Our software is as perfect as it gets. Just take a look at the demos on our site. However, it is obviously just another cash grab by lawyers. Everyone knows that lawyers are unethical and out to make as much as possible no matter what.
System owners *already* pay for buggy software through downtime, applying fixes, hiring consultants, patching, etc. when software breaks. Why not ask the manufacturer to at least share the burden for selling defective software? Even if the cost is passed right back to the buyer, at least the purchasers are paying for a better (less defective) product at the start, rather than paying to apply post-purchase fixes.
Granted, if the system owner uses the software inappropriately or misconfigures it, the manufacturer should not be held liable. But products liability law already controls for these circumstances through the judicial process.
Also the statements "InfoWorld reports that lawyers want to be able to sue software developers for shipping software that is not perfect. Even free and open source software." is a little misleading — the guidelines specifically exempt free software. There is, however; some clarification needed on when/if a manufacturer is compensated by charging for the delivery or support of free software, and if liability extends in those circumstances.
Car manufacturers fought mandated seat belts for a long time, but have since turned extra safety features into competitive advantages — why can’t software companies do the same?
Well one of two things are going to happen, if this does occur:
1)Less software is going to be developed for the open public
2)Prices are dramtically going to increase, so that developers can have an attorney on retainer and be prepared for that law suite.
What happens when something NEW makes something OLD not work? The OLD stuff is working bug free, but when it runs with the NEW it doesn’t work. What is the problem software, the OLD or the NEW? The NEW software doesn’t register the problem, only the OLD software. The NEW software maybe a device driver or DLL library.
Jit,
That is a regrettably uninformed view.
The reality is that the creators of complex software have to apply a triage process to bugs: it is *not* the case that all bugs should automatically be fixed. It is possible (in some cases likely) when fixing one bug can introduce others (and so on in infinite regression), so the impact of any given bug needs to be assessed and weighed against the likelihood that the cure could be worse than the disease.
And as for guaranteeing that software is bug-free (which even this unwise proposal doesn’t suggest), the only way to be sure of that is only to do *exactly* what has been done before – that idea brings tears of joy to the eyes of accountants and others who like to prattle on about quality without understanding what it is, but it doesn’t advance software development at all.