Techdirt wrote back in May about the European Union’s movement to make buggy software illegal. The news was reported by CNET and included arguments for holding the developer responsible for bugs in the code as well as the position that digital goods shouldn’t be held to the same requirements as tangible goods (aka. toasters). Â It looks as if the argument has moved to include video games.
Obviously it is better for a company to release software that isn’t buggy, after all it’s just good business to do so. What I don’t understand is the necessity to declare releasing software with bugs in it a situation where the developer can be held liable for losses that the client incurred. This raises HUGE concerns for the TBYB (Try before you buy) and Shareware communities. Where is the possibility of innovation if developers are afraid to get compensated for their hard-work.
As a software tester this raises major concerns for me. Â In my experience the software that I test very rarely goes through a true testing cycle before it’s first release (and then a QA person gets hired). Â It isn’t usually until money has been secured for the developer/company that they can afford to hire a tester. Â That’s where the innovation is, getting a product that is good enough of an idea and in execution to be able to sell it. With the possible threat of lawsuits (or fines?) for not vetting out a piece of software without a professional tester behind it to begin with will take out a LOT of ideas.
Don’t get me wrong, I like bug-free software, but no software is completely bug free… EVER. You have to triage the bugs that are worth fixing before the next release. This is where the risk is for the client and why shopping around for the right solution is so very important. What is the developer’s history? Can you talk to other users about their experience? What is the customer service promise? I’m anxious to see how this one plays out and hopefully if this ends up passing overseas it won’t even come up here.
To make something clear, I’m against regulation of pure software. Obviously the need for regulation of software that is actually firmware is a different story. Â My car’s computer does NOT equal my solitaire game.
–dez
Just a quick question for you readers though, would the enforcement of this remove the need for a limited liability (use at your own risk) section in EULA’s?
