Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 05:47:13 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich"
<aek@VB1162.spb.edu> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>But I'd like to note here that traditionally (until relatively recently)
>science was about acquiring stable knowledge and understanding, and not about
>redoing the world.

That's not science yet. A true science begins when it gives birth to
engineering.

>> >> Because, it is clear that
>> >> software cannot be produced by individuals,
>> >
>> >It is not clear for me. Can an individual produce a novel? Well, a big novel,
>> >in several volumes? Of course not - because a paper must be produced (even
>> >for original writing) then the book must be printed in several thousand
>> >copies, than these books must be sold to thousands people.
>>
>> To clarify things, I did not mean neither network administrators nor
>> those who are attaching labels on CDs.
>
>How about various editors, proofreaders, sometimes illustrators, 
>"alpha-testers" - friends to whom the author read parts of unfinished book ?
>I think that without those people quality of the book would suffer very much -
>so much that it might provoke you to propose author's liability for that.

No, the book you refer is just a carrier of something more valuable
than cellulose. So far there was no need to distinguish them because
to reproduce the artifact was difficult, if possible. This way one
could sell books, for example. With the software, this mechanics does
not work anymore. As a result we have piracy, born by this insufficent
model. The piracy is not God-given, as you are trying to convince me.
It is just a result.

>> There is UN, WTO and thousands of other worldwide
>> organizations trying to influence one or another aspect of human
>> activity.  Most of these activities are far less important than
>> software development. Because, again, it will influence everything,
>> and in a very short period of time.
>
>But there are international organizations and national organization in various
>countries (some of then actually are international - like ACM and IEEE)
>dealing with software as well. What else you want? Are you participating in
>at least one of those organizations?

Can you remember the last time CNN mentioned IEEE in its news block?
UN-bureaucrats are aired each day.

>> But what I actually meant, is that if there is a serious defect (such
>> as periodic crash, data corruption etc),
>
>But if that periodic crash is caused by irregular malfunction of some hardware
>(preferably the motherboard) or underlying OS or combination of both? How
>court will investigate such cases?

Vendors are liable. They can sue other vendor.

>But the real problem and real danger of that liability is that the vendor,
>fearing suits, will reduce risk. There are many situations where programmer
>can decide whether to take a risk - in interests of almost all users - or not
>to do that because in a case of bad luck the user will suffer, however
>probably slightly, but nevertheless s/he will be annoyed and perhaps will sue.

I do not want MS taking risk by developing a new branch of Windows
each year.

>And even there will be no real unhappy users, there may be "research firm"
>that lurkes around for such holes and probably will find it - and then provoke
>a suit.

It would be very useful. BTW I would make software cracking legal, as
long as it does not damage something. It could much help in improving
software safety and reliability.

>> >> >What I see in reality is quite rapid progress. One may clain that the progress
>> >> >might be more rapid and more comprehensive if some other rules were in effect.
>> >>
>> >> So far the only "rapid progress" you have specified was the number of
>> >> users. It is irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Not just number of users, but many new categories of users and many new
>> >sorts of applications.
>>
>> Again this is not progress. It is a law of market which fills all
>> holes.
>
>But who create those holes?

Life

>> your point seems to be: "there is something very specific in
>> software products which expulses them from juridical system." This is
>> a strong statement, so a proof, please.
>
>You said that many times yourself - that software is very specific - in its
>omnipresence (in very near future), in its unversality, and even in its
>potential danger. And I do not dispute that, generally.

OK

>What expulses it from juridical system? Exactly some of those features -
>mostly its universality,

I do not see why. There are lots of other universal things being
regulated.

>but also its omnipresence: software as a general
>notion is bigger and more powerful (however vague) than any legal system.

Human beings are even bigger and powerful. Neither software nor legal
system can even emerge without humans. Yet criminal law exists.

>I am not generally against vendor's liability for particular software
>products.

Excellent

>I am against liability for software. Liability should be based
>on intended use of the product

That's my point

>and it should not relate to popular notions
>regarding the product's construction.

Depending on application area, the state has right to require definite
procedures to be applied for software construction. This is a common
practice. There is no reason to reinvent wheel here.

>And it certainly should not be based
>on those popular notions.

Those are not notions, but knowledge. It is *known* that bridges shall
not be built without analysis of statics etc. Again, there is no
reason, why it should be otherwise in case of software.

If you say that software cannot be designed in a safe way, then it is
another story. In such cases it has to be forbidden in this area.
Remeber, we are talking about special application areas threatening
human life. It is also a common practice. For instance, any
dynamometer shall have an [electro]mechanical emergency stop
capability.

>In other words, liability should not mention
>software at all - at least before the legal definition of the term "software"
>will be approved (and when such a definition will be available it will be
>possible, and probably easy, to move the product outside of this definition).

This is absolutely wrong. If software determines functionality of
product to say 90%, how one can avoid mentioning it?

Consider a bed-side monitoring system for resuscitation departments.
Should a patient die because of software crash, who would be liable?
Let me be a vendor. I would make a box and let it be certified for
medical use. Then I would contract a third party company of hackers to
write some funky Web-based application for it. Next I would sell the
box and a CD with it. Now, I suppose, the market should select
patients choosing hospitals, that do not buy my system. Right?

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de