Re: [SystemSafety] Qualifying SW as "proven in use" [Measuring Software]

From: Martyn Thomas < >
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:08:49 +0100

On 26/06/2013 01:09, Steve Tockey wrote:
> In fact, I would even advocate a removal of the liability waiver on
> software licenses. Let programmers who write code that fails be liable for
> the damage that their defects caused. Then, and probably only then, will
> we see proper professionalism applied to software development. It's
> clearly (to me, at least) not an issue of software not being able to be
> built in a solid, reliable way, it's simply that the practitioners are too
> used to complete immunity from their sloppiness.

At a company level, this makes good sense (see Ross Anderson's work on Security Economics). Imposing liability for consequential damage on Individual programmers is less likely to be helpful, in my opinion.

There is draft legislation in the UK to clarify that exclusion clauses in EULAs and other consumer contracts have to be fair, in the context of the reasonable expectations of quality for software and other digital content. It may make it easier to recover damages for consequential losses - if consumers get together to afford to mount a legal challenge to a supplier.


The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Jun 26 2013 - 10:09:01 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:05 CEST