Thread

1. recursivedoubts · 1790522383 · 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 · 1790522952 · 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 · 1790523472 · 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 · 1790523625 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't think anyone is looking for legal remedies, this is not the right layer.

            1. timschmidt · 1790524107 · 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. _vertigo · 1790525143 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is one of the most exhausting (and frankly, exhausted) recurring arguments that comes up over and over again on HN.

                  Some bit of open source software does something bad or unwanted which causes people point out that it shouldn't do that bad thing. In this case, not even "the authors of this software should be held liable for the software doing the bad thing", just, "Hey, the right thing to do would be to update the software to not do the bad thing."

                  Why does this always lead a zillion people to come out of the woodwork to point at licenses and warnings or whatever? Like, yes, there's a warning. Your software having a warning doesn't mean people can't criticize you and your software for doing bad thing. Your software license does not give you immunity from criticism or from people saying you should change your software.

                  No, you don't have to change the software. Yes, other people are within their rights to fork the software themselves. But they can also point out that they told you that your software was doing the bad thing and you didn't fix it or change it, and that as a result they don't like you or your software or both — whatever. Nothing at all wrong with that.

                  1. jeltz · 1790526132 · focus · HN ↗

                     Such a disclaimer does not even remove all legal liability, it just reduces it.
                  2. timschmidt · 1790528118 · focus · HN ↗

                     I actually think you framed it really well. No parties involved have any particular obligations to each other. Nor should there be expectations otherwise without support. It sucks to lose data, everyone knows that, and no one wants it. And identifying things which can be improved is important. I stop at expecting someone else to do something because I want them to. I might hope they would, and try to convince them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.