Accountability vs. Liability
from the a-more-reasonable-solution dept
A different writer at ZDNet has followed up on yesterday’s story about Howard Schmidt concerning the liability of software developers, and admitted that the original story was misleading (and was going to be changed). He followed up with Schmidt and clarified his thoughts to say that developers needed to be accountable, not liable, for flaws — which makes much more sense. Yes, better training and better testing is needed, and, when flaws are found, they need to be addressed. That’s reasonable. Adding liability to the equation isn’t — but it was apparently folks at ZDNet who did that, instead of Howard Schmidt.
