Re: References Are Needed

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Laurent Bercot wrote:

> > Real people have duties and obligations. Real people can be held
> > accountable, financially or at least reputationally
> 
>  Duties and obligations are situational.

Sure, I agree that context matters.

>  I am a professional software architect. I can be held accountable
> by my employer for the software I produce during my working hours.
> If a flaw in the software is discovered and is traced back to me,
> it is my professional duty to correct it; if I don't, I can be
> fired on grounds of not fulfilling my part of the contract.

Sure.

>  When I'm home, though, and writing free software, such as
> execline or skadns, I have no duty and no obligation. If you find a
> flaw in skadns and report it, but I don't feel like correcting it,
> tough luck.
>  It's simple, really.

Not really. Sure, you don't have any _legal_ obligation to fix bugs in
most free software cases, but you might find your _reputation_ harmed if
you don't.  That is why people looking for quality software look to the
reputation of the company and the people behind it.  You're mixing one's
legal duties with one's reputational obligations.

>  And we're talking about free software here: djbdns and zinq-djbdns.

Free has nothing to do with it. Free software has exactly the same
obligations as your employer has for the software you were employed to
write. While non-free software may have a different contract terms than
free software, both have legal duties that can't be disclaimed and both
have reputational obligations.

> No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to hold anyone legally
> responsible. Thank God.

Not so.  In most Western countries, you have a duty not to intentionally
harm others, at least. For example, you can't release viruses without
any legal responsibility whatsoever. You can't disclaim your
_legal_duties_ (they wouldn't be duties if you could disclaim them) and
you have to comply with laws; so you really ought to have some idea of
what the laws and duties are. I'm not saying Zinq-dbjdns violates any
laws---I am refuting your assertion that free software is somehow
completely without legal obligations.


>  This doesn't mean I support zinq-djbdns. I don't. But I support nosy,
> bureaucratic people even less.

I don't support nosy, bureaucratic people either, and if you meant that
as a dig at me, you are terribly mistaken.  There is nothing
bureaucratic about investigating and debunking dubious unsubstantiated
claims of 'security flaws' in DNS and DJBDNS.  I suppose it could be
nosy, though. I have always had an insatiable curiousity. I don't see
how it is a bad thing to uncover scams and incredible claims.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000