Re: Non-free software for identifying mushrooms

[address@hidden]

   Tiny additional technical point: the classification should consider
   geography as well.  I heard of a couple visiting the Boston (USA) area
   from China. They found a mushroom that looked like an edible mushroom
   in China, but it was not the same and was in fact very poisonous. One
   died and the other was very ill.
   I'm not a mushroom expert but it was explained in the news article that
   their mushroom classification would have been fine had they been
   considering only mushrooms present in China.
   Of course this is tangential to software and licensing. Carry on....
   Jim Garrett

   On April 2, 2024 6:13:36 AM EDT, "Lars Noodén via libreplanet-discuss"
   <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:


   On 3/30/24 01:06, Akira Urushibata wrote:
   [snip]

   Another issue I would like to raise is that many people erroneously
   believe that "artificial intelligence" is an improved form of software.
   Conventional programs are accurate when properly written, but "AI"
   systems work on a different principle which cannot guarantee accuracy.
   Many people fail to understand this. They think: "Computers are
   accurate.
   AI makes computers better so one with AI must also be accurate."

   [snip]
   Good point.
   First an aside, a simple photo alone would not be enough to safely
   identify a mushroom even with fully free software. When identifying a
   mushroom the top, the underside, the stipe, the texture, and the
   substrate or location it was growing in have to be taken into account.
   Sometimes even the season and scent help. The software could start wit
   the photo and then ask follow up questions thus combine "AI" with a
   classical Expert System, the latter being quite good in such cases.
   However, stepping back and looking at the larger problem, there are the
   questions of fitness for purpose and liability with software in
   general.
   Back in 2014, Dan Geer brought up the topic of software liability and
   how to address it. Software freedom is an essential component in his
   initial musings:
   """
   .......................
   1. If you deliver your software with complete and
   buildable source code and a license that allows
   disabling any functionality or code the licensee
   decides, your liability is limited to a refund.
   .......................
   Clause one is how to avoid liability: Make it possible for
   your users to inspect and chop out any and all bits of your
   software they do not trust or want to run. That includes a
   bill of materials ("Library ABC comes from XYZ") so that trust
   has some basis, paralleling why there are ingredient lists on
   processed foods.
   The word "disabling" is chosen very carefully: You do not need
   to give permission to change or modify how the program works,
   only to disable the parts of it that the licensee does not
   want or trust. Liability is limited even if the licensee never
   actually looks at the source code; as long has he has received
   it, you (as maker) are off the hook. All your other copyrights
   are still yours to control, and your license can contain any
   language and restriction you care for, leaving the situation
   unchanged with respect to hardware-locking, confidentiality,
   secrets , software piracy, magic numbers, etc.
   Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is obviously covered by
   this clause which leaves its situation unchanged.
   """
   —— [1]http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
   A lot of proprietary software, such as the mushroom guide, or any
   product out of the bowels of Redmond, appear to fall into the
   unfortunate category of being unfit for purpose.
   And of components, I gather that the foundations for eventual liability
   rules are being laid by dealing with the Software Bill of Materials
   being made by so many FOSS projects of late. However, it is important
   that proactive efforts be made too so that FOSS does not get painted
   into a corner somehow outmaneuvered.
   /Lars
     __________________________________________________________________

   libreplanet-discuss mailing list
   libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [2]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

   -- Sent from /e/OS Mail.

References

   1. http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
   2. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss