AFAIK if you take open source software, provided without liability, and use it commercially then you take the liability for that product, since you can't shift it to the creator, since they're volunteering for free.
Which seems like common sense to me. It's good when the law mirrors common sense.
> AFAIK if you take open source software, provided without liability, and use it commercially then you take the liability for that product, since you can't shift it to the creator, since they're volunteering for free.
That is incorrect per my understanding. If that open source org offers eg paid support, they likely have liability, at least in the EU. Now they're probably, practically speaking, judgement proof. But they do have liability. see [1]
Okay, but then they're selling a product, not volunteering. And the law is that people who sell software can be liable for that software. Which makes sense. This is how every other product on the market works.
Note that "can be liable" does not mean "will pay so much money they go bankrupt". It just means that normal liability rules will apply and that person is not shielded from liability. If I sold you a broken car saying it was in perfect order, I may be liable, but if I can prove a mechanic told me it was in perfect order and I didn't break it after that, I may be able to transfer my liability to them. Now, if because the car was faulty, you crashed into a children's picnic, your car exploded into flames and and killed an entire orphanage, I or the mechanic may still go bankrupt paying their medical bills...
"selling" a product for $0 is an insane twisting of english and common sense.
And something now that only idiots do. And the reason no physical world analogies apply in the slightest is even if you give away (not sell) a car or some other physical possession, you don't sell a million copies and incur liability across a million users. For that same $0 cost. While that free download incurs effectively unbounded liability.
If I give away free cookies I baked just to feed people and they develop minor food poisoning, I may be shielded by the fact I was volunteering in good faith. If I give away free cookies with the logo of some big event to advertise that event, now it's commercial and I may be liable for the cookies because I'm backed by the money of that big event and should have been held to a higher standard.
The idea that selling one thing, ever, creates a financial obligation to anyone, ever, who downloads something for free is abject nonsense. And again, would lead anyone rational to wholesale blocking the UK or EU.
Which seems like common sense to me. It's good when the law mirrors common sense.