Unix administration - responsible license

Author

responsible license

Xah Lee

2004-01-23, 5:00 pm

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 XXXXing 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 XXXXing 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 XXXXed 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/...le_license.html

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

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

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

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

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@users.sf.net

David Schwartz

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

"Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote in message
news:7fe97cc4.0308311325.5f21fd9d@posting.google.com...

quote:

> 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 XXXXing 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

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:08:36 -0700
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

quote:

>
> "Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote in message
> news:7fe97cc4.0308311325.5f21fd9d@posting.google.com...
>
>
> 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.

--
Jerry Feldman <gaf-nospam-at-blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

Eric Merritt

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

quote:

> 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...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.

Jerry Feldman

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:23:22 -0500
rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:

quote:

> Jerry Feldman <gaf-noSPAM@blu.org> wrote:
> +---------------
> | > 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.

--
Jerry Feldman <gaf-nospam-at-blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

Rob Warnock

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

Christopher C. Stacy <cstacy@dtpq.com> wrote:
+---------------
| 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

-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

Christopher C. Stacy

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

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

Rob> Christopher C. Stacy <cstacy@dtpq.com> wrote:
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

2004-01-23, 5:01 pm

Christopher C. Stacy <cstacy@dtpq.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Rob Warnock ("Rob") writes:
| Rob> Christopher C. Stacy <cstacy@dtpq.com> wrote:
| 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...

-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607