[OH Updates] licenses wrap up...
bruce at perens.com
Fri Sep 9 12:02:28 PDT 2011
On 09/09/2011 11:50 AM, Andrew Stone wrote:
> Hmm, I agree with you for a "standard" unmodifiable device. But our
> situation is very different. The problem is that many of the devices
> are intended to be used in ways which the creators did not anticipate.
> But consider that people use Arduinos in "mission critical"
> applications without even thinking about it. Like having them trigger
> fireworks, model rockets, drive tractors, or allow real time tweaking
> of engine parameters (I'm no expert but I think you can "tweak" these
> to the point the engine would lock up, say going 80 on the highway).
Busybox, which I created, is in medical equipment even though I didn't
put it forth for that use. Regarding Arduino, Atmel has a specific
disclaimer at http://www2.atmel.com/About/terms.aspx#body_7
that is worth reading and would be relevant.
In general the liability is on the people who put the product in that
sort of application without any indication from the manufacturer of the
component that it meets an appropriate reliability standard for such an
> Is this supported by case law? In fact, I think that this idea --
> basically since the "licensee" contains the full design files the
> licensee must determine suitability for a particular application --
> may be an adequate defense for certain regions especially if certain
> language is used in the license agreement.
I don't want to go searching cases, but this comes down to the concept
that tools and construction parts (that's what these are) have a
different safety standard than consumer products. Which I'm pretty sure
has been covered.
More information about the updates