> you're proposing congressional oversight on open-source software.
If you build a house for free, does that mean it's exempt from building codes?
If you build a house for free, does that mean it's exempt from building codes?
And relatedly, if I give away viruses for free, am I good to go?
Not that I'm particularly sanguine about the odds of legislators getting it right, but I agree with rayiner that "open-source" isn't a GOOJF card.
On the other hand, it seems clear that code I write only for my own use has different regulatory requirements. In general, laws often let people do riskier things for themselves, relative to risks they let people take on behalf of others. But in this case, if you write code for yourself, it's obvious that you opted in to its features.
Right. I think a law that said that open source browsers had to do this or that would be stupid. But that's a strawman anyway. The regulation would probably involve what advertisers could do, or regulate browsers sold with PCs or tablets, or whatever. Not that I'm in favor of regulating it at all... but the fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.
If people don't want to use my software then they don't have to.
Oh and by the way, you OWN a house.