‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

On caring for user data: NeoVim caused Vim undo files to be deleted

384 points · 346 comments · jandeboevrie

  1. recursivedoubts · · focus · HN ↗
    They are open source developers, giving away free software as a gift. There is no duty here.

    We can speak, respectfully, of how important backwards compatibility is to us, and ask nicely for them to give more of their time to support it when their free sodftware isn't backwards compatible. Perhaps we can even offer to help implement it.

    But they have no duty to do so or to "care" for their users. (They have already demonstrated they care for their users, btw, by giving them free software.)

    EDIT: I missed an important part of the story, which is that they mutated existing files in a non-backwards compatible manner. That should have been avoided, I understand where the (secondary) author is coming from now.

    1. pdonis · · focus · HN ↗
      > giving away free software as a gift

      Even a gift comes with an implicit promise that it will do no harm. Deleting important data of yours without warning is harm.

      1. timschmidt · · focus · HN ↗
        This gift comes with the following clauses listed plainly in the license file:

           7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
      agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
      Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
      implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
      of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
      PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
      appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
      risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

   8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
      whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
      unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
      negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
      liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
      incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
      result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
      Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
      work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
      other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
      has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
        1. jstanley · · focus · HN ↗
          I don't think anyone is looking for legal remedies, this is not the right layer.
          1. timschmidt · · focus · HN ↗
            Is some part of:

            "Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

            Unclear? The fact that it's part of a license does not make it a legal-system-only warning.

            The software might eat your dog, and feed your homework. Run it at your own risk, and be prepared to submit patches or fork it to make it behave the way one prefers.

            1. mikestew · · focus · HN ↗
              The software might eat your dog, and feed your homework

              Sure, and when it does we can say “this piece of shit ate my dog, and the authors of the software have no concept of a duty of care to their users”. And no amount of “well, axually…” is going to make any difference. I have a hard believing someone is copy-pasting a license file in good faith in response.

              1. timschmidt · · focus · HN ↗
                Most open source software is written by individuals who aren't paid for the effort, and are solving their own problems. Presuming that they feel an obligation to the folks who download and use their work for free seems... bold.

                If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, I'm not going to complain about his workmanship. If I want the job done a particular way, the solution is to do it myself, or pay someone to do it the way I like.

                1. tikhonj · · focus · HN ↗
                  If my neighbor mows my lawn and ruins my whole garden, I'd definitely complain. (And if I were in the neighbor's shoes, I'd feel awful about it and try to fix things.)
                2. rdiddly · · focus · HN ↗
                  If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, and in the process mows my flower garden down, things change a bit though don't they. That is a closer analogy. In that case I am going to complain, and maybe also tell everybody he's careless and not to let him near their lawns.
                3. leoc · · focus · HN ↗
                  Suppose that you build a childrens&#x27; slide in your front garden. You put up a big sign saying &quot;Consider using my slide! <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neovim.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neovim.io&#x2F; Here are several wonderful things about it. It&#x27;s free for everyone!&quot; in your yard. Underneath in smaller letters you add &quot;[No liability]&quot;. You also put up noticeboard ads for your free kids&#x27; slide in neighbourhood shopping malls <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;launchpad.net&#x2F;ubuntu&#x2F;+source&#x2F;neovim" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;launchpad.net&#x2F;ubuntu&#x2F;+source&#x2F;neovim <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wiki.archlinux.org&#x2F;title&#x2F;Neovim" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wiki.archlinux.org&#x2F;title&#x2F;Neovim . Unfortunately, when you built the slide, you left sharp metal edges and corners sticking far up on the inside, reaching into the path of the user. No reasonably competent and diligent metalworker or slide-maker would have failed to notice these major flaws or failed to understand the serious danger they represented. Several neighbourhood children use the slide and receive serious gashes to the legs, arms or face, and have to go to the hospital. Even assuming that your no-liability small print somehow had you free and clear legally, do you believe that your behaviour would have been ethically and morally above all criticism? Do you think that &quot;should have read the small print!&quot; or &quot;can&#x27;t I build what I like in my own front yard?!&quot; would have you covered? Do you think that your family and friends would agree?
                4. retsibsi · · focus · HN ↗
                  &gt; If my neighbor mows my lawn for free, I&#x27;m not going to complain about his workmanship. If I want the job done a particular way, the solution is to do it myself, or pay someone to do it the way I like.

                  I think this is a decent analogy, but it works better the other way. If my neighbour offers to mow my lawn, I accept, and then he destroys the flower bed adjacent to the lawn, I will be upset, and I will have every right to complain about what he did. If he reacts by blithely dismissing my concern, then I certainly have the right (and arguably the obligation) to warn others that they should think twice about accepting his offers of gardening assistance.

                  Some expectations reasonably go without saying; &quot;don&#x27;t destroy my flower bed when mowing my lawn&quot; is one, and IMO &quot;don&#x27;t destroy my data without a clear warning and a chance to back out&quot; is another, though of course we might disagree about exactly where this does and doesn&#x27;t apply.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.