Exactly.

I think there should be an exception for free and open source software though. We have lots of free software designed to be used by people. I don't think these programmers should be held liable. Many of them are amateurs and volunteers. The chilling effect would simply be too great.

I'm reminded of Greg Kroah-Hartman's talk about kernel contributors.

https://youtu.be/fMeH7wqOwXA&t=326s

> My goal, of me, as a developer and to make Linux succeed, is to help [amateurs, unknown individuals] out.

> If you're hired to do this stuff, you're on your own and you better know what you're doing.

I think he's right. At the time, roughly 20% of the kernel was done by individuals. That work is extremely valuable yet it is different from professional work. It should be treated differently. with a lot more compassion and understanding. On the other hand, it is fine to expect professionals to be disciplined.

> A social-media site operated by an amateur in the bedroom being paid nothing and using only open-source software would still be liable under any sensible and realistic regulation.

Yeah, I agree. That's not just software anymore, that's a service.

> e.g. create a non-profit, and pay the non-profit which pays the programmer. So long as the programmer is one step removed from you it's fine.

It doesn't matter how indirect it is. The important fact is the programmer is getting paid for their work. That makes it professional work.