OSNews

There is no technique for writing a large piece of software and avoid introducing security holes. I mean, even if you go the OpenBSD approach and sift through the entire code base every 6 months, you still miss something bad once every few years.

If this suit succeeds, then:

1) development will slow down. The only reason open source applications can grow so fast on so slim resources is that they release frequently and use the users as beta testers (one can make an argument that Microsoft does the same thing). If developers are liable for screwing up the user's computer, they will err on the side of caution and spend time looking for bugs instead of making radical changes to their program.

2) small/independent developers will go out of business. Either they will have to buy liability insurance, or they will have to maintain an expensive notarized paper trail detailing how many hours they spent looking for what security flaw, or they will have to put up a bit notice saying "this is alpha release - I am not liable" and give ignorant customers an excuse to stick with big, suable vendors.

3) open source will be in serious trouble because of the slippery slope effect. If it becomes the duty of programmers to make secure code, perhaps someone could argue that only licensed, bonded programmers should be allowed to touch the keyboard. If you don't pay $$$ for a degree, and don't pass an official exam, and don't work for a licensed corporation, you just might lose the right to release software to the public.

I have no love for Microsoft, but if this suit succeeds, it might destroy open source and seriously hurt the entire industry.