1

I am currently making a small script that you use in the browser to get the current user's IP address (I use it with a WebRTC chat), and as I noticed that all popular packages that get an IP address through WebRTC are outdated and no longer work, wanted to Open Source the module.

Now, as packages that get a user's public AND private aren't necessarily used for Real Time Communications (used mostly in malicious scripts that log the users IP without it showing in the network tab in the console, but I want to help the small group of people needing this in a video chat or text chat), so I want my package to be completely bulletproof. However, I also want it to be licensed under the MIT license, so what should I do to make it legally "bulletproof" (impossible for anyone to sue me for any reason or do anything bad like that)? Also, is there any caveats around open sourcing something that could potentially used maliciously? I found these two different GitHub repositories that seem like they don't do anything other than a license, should I just do the same? Could someone do something bad to me if I only provide a license?

Thanks!

1

I also want it to be licensed under the MIT license, so what should I do to make it legally "bulletproof" (impossible for anyone to sue me for any reason or do anything bad like that)?

The MIT licence, like most free licences, includes a substantial disclaimer. To the extent that local law permits you to disclaim responsibility, the use of any major free licence accomplishes this. There are usually certain kinds of responsibility that can't be disclaimed, but I'm not aware of any successful actions against free software authors for faults in their software (that said IANAL/IANYL, and I'd be very pleased to hear of any documented examples).

Also, [are] there any caveats around open sourcing something that could potentially [be] used maliciously?

Not AFAIK specifically about open-sourcing it, no, but the act of creation can get you into trouble. For example, creating tools for what the press calls "hacking" can be an offence. In my jurisdiction (England and Wales), the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (as modified by the Police and Justice Act 2006) provides that "A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3." (CMA 1990 s3a(1)) where s1 offences include causing "a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer" when "the access he intends to secure ... is unauthorised".

Open-sourcing your tools doesn't make this any less an offence - and arguably makes it considerably easier to detect and prove. There is, however, a requirement for intent to be shown; I don't see that it would be enough to argue that you should have been aware that your tool could be used maliciously. Some of those offenders presumably used bash in the commission of their offences, and I don't see any warrants being sworn out against Brian Fox.

0

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. I copyrighted my work before releasing it under, I think, the GPL. Not sure you can guarantee nobody will sue, but the copyright office lists various advantages of copyrighting.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.