| ▲ | layer8 14 hours ago |
| Hobby projects that prove useful have a tendency of starting to be used in production code, and then turning into CVEs down the road. If there is a conscious intent of disregarding safety as you say, the Readme should have a prominent warning about that. |
|
| ▲ | hypeatei 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Hobby projects that prove useful have a tendency of starting to be used in production code Even if that is true, how is that the authors problem? The license clearly states that they're not responsible for damages. If you were developing such a serious project then you need the appropriate vetting process and/or support contracts for your dependencies. |
| |
| ▲ | layer8 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn’t say it’s the author’s problem. It’s a problem with the code. | | |
| ▲ | ethanwillis 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why play all these semantic games? You're saying it's the author's problem. You want them to even edit their readme to include warnings for would be production/business users who don't want to pay for it. | | |
| ▲ | layer8 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | GP is arguing about licences. Yes, formally there is no obligation, and I'm not saying the author has any such obligation. In the present case, either the missing overflow check in the code is by mistake, and then it's warranted to point out the error, or, as I understood GGGP to be arguing, the author deliberately decided to neglect safety or correctness, and then in my opinion you can't reject the criticism as unwarranted if the project's presentation isn't explicit about that. I'm not making anything the author's problem here. Rather, I'm defending my criticism of the code, and am giving arguments as to why it is generally good form to make it explicit if a project doesn't care about the code being safe and correct. | |
| ▲ | president_zippy 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | lixtra 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Layer8 DID the thing though, skimmed through the code and thought about security issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | koolba 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If there is a conscious intent of disregarding safety as you say, the Readme should have a prominent warning about that. What do you consider this clause in the LICENSE: >> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. |
| |
| ▲ | CorrectHorseBat 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | A standard clause you can find in every open source license? It doesn't say anything about how serious the project takes security | | |
| ▲ | Yeask 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You write only Rust code don't you? | | |
| ▲ | CorrectHorseBat 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wish ;) You're talking about how Rust code usually uses the MIT license and this is a part of the MIT license? Every open source license has a very similar clause, include but not limited to BSD, GPL, CDDL, MPL and Apache. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vrighter 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| then that is their problem, not the code author's. If you use a hobby project in production, that's on you |
|
| ▲ | f1shy 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| My personal take is: if the code is good enough, it should be trivial to switch to a better library at the point when needed. |
