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. bsoqk · 1790522665 · focus · HN ↗

      If I give away food I have a duty not to poison you. It doesn’t matter you didn’t pay for it.

      1. Grombobulous · 1790522697 · focus · HN ↗

         Software isn’t food.

         1. bigstrat2003 · 1790523512 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, everyone is aware of that. The parent poster was bringing up the example of food to demonstrate that our society does not agree that giving something away for free doesn't mean you have no obligation as to potential adverse effects of the thing.

            1. Ekaros · 1790525922 · focus · HN ↗

               That is why software should have very large liability for anything software they release do? Say your software due to bug destroys some document. Surely you should pay damages caused by such bug even if quite high?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.