[grumps]

How in the world is this good for devs? It's terrible. Do you really think that "big corp" will not figure out how to pass the liability directly to the author?

What will happen the opensource world once you're held liable for some moron who uses some software I wrote for myself? or incorrectly uses it?

do you really believe the curl should be held liable because some POST failed and a user lost something over it?

what about my old backup scripts? I need to remove them from my repos?

[moses-palmer]

I read the article twice, because the link title made me think that I as an open source contributor and publisher liable for complaints.

My reading of the text is that the one actually selling the software product is the one having to abide by this law. Am I incorrect?

How could this be negative? I presume that most publishers of open source software would prefer that some Silicon Valley Unicorn did _not_ half-heartedly integrate their library, causing security issues and tainting their library name?

[grumps]

Because lawyers and courts become involved. They don't understand software or anything related to it.