Although I'm certainly not sold on this idea [1], I find it amusing that the BSA representative is against it; after all, one of Microsoft's main arguments against F/OSS is that there's nobody liable for its correct function. Maybe because the EU laws covering warranties only apply to consumers, not businesses, and Microsoft would have to offer consumer-level customer support of some kind as part of the license. (as far as I know you currently have to pay per issue for support unless you have some kind of contract with MS)

[1] I don't see how someone writing open source software in his or her spare time in any way deserves to be liable for malfunction, for example; another worry is the amount of ambiguity involved at all stages, from "intended use" to the definition of "efficacy and security", along with the technical complexity and explosion of possible combinations of software on the average computer