News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source by gruez on Friday March 18, 2022 @11:56PM (#30730842)
You're thinking about it from the wrong perspective. Yes, publishing software can be thought of as expression, and that's protected by the constitution. But publishing malware as benign software, without disclosing it is fraud/deception, and that shouldn't be allowed. The legal system protects freedom of expression, but still allows you to get punished for deceptive speech that's harmful (ie. fraud/libel).
Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source by GingerMidas on Saturday March 19, 2022 @08:39AM (#30733287)
This is when the "no warranty, expressed or implied" kicks in, no?
Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source by atq2119 on Saturday March 19, 2022 @08:45AM (#30733316)
Those words are not some sort of magic spell. Licenses can't override law unless the law explicitly allows them to, and the law generally distinguishes or tries to distinguish between honest mistakes and malicious behaviour. IANAL and laws differ between countries so YMMV.
Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source by 7steps2much on Saturday March 19, 2022 @09:41AM (#30733622)
> no warranty, expressed or implied

This isn't enforceable in quite a few jurisdictions anyways. The best you can do is "No warranty to the extend permitted by law" at which point this specific use case is pretty much no longer relevant.

Re:On the Weaponisation of Open Source by antifa on Sunday March 20, 2022 @11:29AM (#30743431)
That protects against bugs, segfaults, incompatibilities, etc. Not intentional malware.