Richard Meyer <meyerri@???> wrote:
>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-300769.html
>Good idea or bad?
Bad.
All code would have to be from scratch to be able to assume
liability. This includes the operating system and all "standard"
libraries.
The software industry's practice isn't generally up to Engineering
standards that would be needed as a basis for robust/trustworthy
computing.
The cost of software would increase by an order of magnitude or more
(10 to 100-fold) to pay for the exercise.
What is more likely to happen is that insurance companies will sell
expensive policies. Commercial software quality is unlikely to
improve; it'll just get more expensive as insurance premiums will
have to be paid.
In terms of FOSS; who are the makers? It seems to be a disincentive
to contributors if they are saddled with the consequences of "bugs",
resulting from the use/abuse of the code that they produce.
Liability must be limited to the price paid.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | When we remember that we are all mad,
X against HTML mail | the mysteries disappear and life stands
/ \ and postings | explained. -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Off-topic mailing list
Off-topic@???
http://www.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/off-topic
(text/plain)