I see where you are coming from, but increasing liability for free software does not feel like a good idea to me at all. There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army, but any small open-source project or even medium sized company will be extremely vary of releasing anything.
I'm not saying you should never go there - GDPR does and it's a net improvement -, but it's extremely easy to massively overshoot.
It may be free software but it's also a commercial enterprise.
Furthermore, Chromium is free software, Chrome isn't. Perhaps Google should be liable for distributing Chrome in such a sorry state, but not for what lands in Chromium.
I don't really disagree, but to play devil's advocate a little, if I was giving away free knives and someone cut themselves, would I be to blame in any way?
The company would be knowingly made of lead but neither owners or buyers would be informed of that by the company who is themselves heavily invested in lead.
i didn't recall chrome being marketed as a safer alternative. I suppose the original "sandbox" tab is considered safer, but not in the way that this chrome extension is dangerous in.
And why does it being a monopoly matter in this context? Not to mention that it isn't a monopoly.
Suppose developers of smart locks make an error, and all smartslock unlock on Fridays.
When users ask the Company, they lie and claim their locks are flawless and users are to blame.
Millions of houses are robbed, people loose their life possesions, and home robbers kill some grandma.
Should the Grandma's family get just a $100 refund (price of the lock)?
> There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army
That's defeatist. If thats true, then this whole discussion is pointless.
If there are 'nobles' that don't answer to justice, we live in feudalism. Freedom and capitalism are dead.
Please dont make up alarmist analogies to try and support your point. You introduce unnecessary points of confusion with 1) whether your scenario even fits and 2) whether the outcomes even make sense.
Alarmist? In Britain we have sent ~800 innocent people to prison because a programming error said they stole money. The software development company testified in court that their software was great, despite many inconsitencies being pointed out.
I think it should be obvious that a poorly designed product can do much more damage than it costs, both through stolen data and by causing legal action
As software intrudes into physical world, the potential for damage will keep growing.
You should read any one of Mark Russinovich's amusing novels on viruses destroying the world. You might be convinced we should stop using any software.
I see where you are coming from, but increasing liability for free software does not feel like a good idea to me at all. There's basically no way you could extract money protected by Googles lawyers army, but any small open-source project or even medium sized company will be extremely vary of releasing anything.
I'm not saying you should never go there - GDPR does and it's a net improvement -, but it's extremely easy to massively overshoot.