If government distributes a free program, has some responsibility to the users of it even if that one's license program otherwise, because, unlike any dealer, a PA does have actual legal obligation to ensure program recipients, who are its citizens. Such liability may be greater even if the user of the program is the PA itself so that a problem in the program it poses to the loss of citizen data or any other result than work against them. At the same time, create a program in the manner of free projects involving several people (the developer who is confident enough to allow write access to the repository), some of which do not have any direct or indirect contractual relationship with the AP that promotes the program may make changes the same, some of which may be harmful, bona fide or maliciously. seems then that we come to the cruel dilemma that an AP must give free and develop a program through a community or accept responsibility for a program that is not under your control. However, this is a false dilemma, since there is an intermediate step between development and publication, which is the point at which the AP can intervene to control the process according to their responsibility without the risk of upsetting the developer community with interference. This point is the release of official versions of the program.
workflow 
right to skirt the issue properly is:
right to skirt the issue properly is: developers to work freely, to the extent that such a thing is possible for the program to not deviate from the specifications in the repository
that a select group of developers, responsible to the AP (staff, hired by the AP or employed by a contractor for this purpose by the AP), select regular branch code "trunk" of the repository, packaged (as a source package or source and binary packages) and publish it
Thus, users who wish can obtain development versions of the code, which is indispensable for detecting faults in it and improve it without liability to the AP, and it can provide official versions have passed the filter of the contracted developers, with full responsibility .
is desirable but not necessary, that the distinction between these two ways of providing the code is apparent in the repository web interface code with a statement such as "[AP] is not liable for any failure of these versions of development and denies any responsibility for it. If you are not an advanced user, please use the official versions may be found at [website].. "
- Before a real problem which occurs as a result of the use of the code, the defense strategy of the AP should vary depending on whether the fault occurs in a code obtained from the repository, or a program of the official.
- In the second case, the AP must accept full responsibility for the damage caused, as it is, at least, vicarious liability, but also must find out what developer agreed to the change in the code that caused the problem and initiate criminal proceedings and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary, as it certainly is one of the "developers of trust "to be fully identified by staff hired by the AP or hired by a company contracted for this purpose by the AP
In the first case, the AP must deny any liability, indicating that the user know what was to download a development version, indicating that the user took full responsibility when using the web interface code development repository (if he did so) or indicating that the user was fully aware of the danger of using a development version, since it is inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced user to use the repository without using your web interface is not.
0 comments:
Post a Comment