[LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies

[J. Liles]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 12:07 -0700, J. Liles wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> > <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> >         On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 11:14 -0700, J. Liles wrote:
> >         >
> >         > /* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be
> >         useful, but
> >         > WITHOUT */
> >         > /* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >         MERCHANTABILITY
> >         > or       */
> >         > /* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General
> >         Public
> >         > License for   */
> >         > /* more
> >         > details.
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > It was not put there without reason.
> >
> >
> >         The reason for this is coverage, but the target of FLOSS is to
> >         provide a
> >         quality level. Again, it's not black and white. If music apps
> >         shouldn't
> >         be perfect it's one thing, but regarding to e.g. security,
> >         privacy even
> >         this disclaimer won't protect an evil coder against a lawsuit.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think you get it. It's not about protecting people from evil
> > programmers.
>
> Then I get it ;). It's a disclaimer.
>
> >  It's about protecting programmers from litigious, self-entitled
> > people who assume that just because something exists, then it must
> > have been tailor made just for them and work in every way as they
> > expect. The kind of people who will shoot themselvse in the foot and
> > blame the maker of the pistol. It is to allow the programmer to write
> > something that works FOR THEMSELVES and share it freely with other
> > people WHOM IT MAY OR MAY NOT WORK FOR, without being held accountable
> > for the fact that it simply may not work for everybody. It is
> > extremely difficult, if not impossible, to write software that works
> > in environments and use cases that the programmer has never seen.
> >
> >
> > Consider free-software not as you would a tool that you bought from
> > the hardware store, but as a hand-crafted work of art that happens to
> > have functional applications.
>
> You can't present children at Halloween candy bars with razor blades in
> them and a disclaimer and guess you're off the hook.
>
> I don't care about the abilities that Linux audio apps might have or not
> have, but about a quality level for Linux. That something is a gift
> doesn't mean there is no demand on e.g. privacy. If somebody makes
> something public, even for free as in beer, there are still rules, laws
> to take into account. If a coder does not want to take care about rules
> and laws, the coder better don't release his software. _Again_ I'm not
> talking about the abilities of Linux audio apps, I'm thinking of data
> protection.
>
> Dialog is needed if quality should raise, the other way, no dialog and
> use it or don't use it is legitimate too, don't get me wrong. I only
> want to point out, that the argument that something is free as in beer,
> doesn't mean that there are no quality standards.
>
> I programmed audio software myself ages ago and when I gave it away for
> free I didn't care about it's quality as much as I do care when I give
> away a power supplies for free.
>
> Something that is for free still shouldn't be dangerous crap.
>
>
Ralf, I have only one thing left to say to you:

sudo rm -rf /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20130816/15dcddb9/attachment.html>