[demorro]

> You wouldn't call your car a liability just because you need to ensure it stays maintained. Why is it any different with code?

Wouldn't I? If I have to keep my car maintained, insured etc, but I don't get enough value out of it to offset that, then it's a liability.

The conceptual difference you can make with code is that code contains all the liability and none of the value. It is only in the capabilities of the system the code manifests that value is achieved. In the same way the perfect car simply teleports you to your destination without need to maintain all that metal and rubber, the most desirable software delivers behaviors without the need to maintain any code.

[altmanaltman]

> Wouldn't I? If I have to keep my car maintained, insured etc, but I don't get enough value out of it to offset that, then it's a liability.

No you wouldn't and cannot legally or business-wise speaking.

> The conceptual difference you can make with code is that code contains all the liability and none of the value. It is only in the capabilities of the system the code manifests that value is achieved. In the same way the perfect car simply teleports you to your destination without need to maintain all that metal and rubber, the most desirable software delivers behaviors without the need to maintain any code.

Then make the point clearly. It is a conceptual decision to see the "capabilities of the system the code manifests" as different from the code that was written to do the same. I do not agree with the decision, since you're ignoring all the value the code provides and seeing it only as a liability.

The perfect car doesn't exist and neither does the perfect code. But that doesn't make them liabilities in any business/accounting/conceptual sense.

So, no, you cannot call a car you own a liability in the common sense of the word, but you may if you make a decision to do so within your own conceptual framework. But that is disconnected from reality.