Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws?
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne () winternet com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:25:13 -0500 (CDT)
Let's face it with this whole argument. The laws could be written to protect mom& pop's, or limit liability there to SW cost, exepmt GPL'ed SW, and only target for real bucks the big vendors. But,, as has been seen, M$ alone can stand up to and get through the courts pretty much unscathed, even if facing a few million dollars a day penalties during the process. This without even having to lobby and facing the feds and states in the courts directly. so, the only real rememdy is for individuals and corps to hit M$ and the major vendors that are problem clindren directly in the pocketbooks. For course, such a boycott will never get pulled off, far to many management types have their whole careers tied into their dependence upon unsanitary toys and trinkets shipped by the major problem children of the industry. Thanks, Ron DuFresne On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:19:05 -0300, Fabio Gomes de Souza <fabio () gs2 com br> said:This is an entire crap. Everyone knows that a contract cannot override the law. If the law tells that the manufacturer of a product should be liable for its product's failures, then the manufacturer will be, regardless of any stupid contract the manufacturer and the consumer sign. I cannot, for example, sign a contract which gives me the right to kill you, because the contract is overriding the law.There's just one little problem with your logic: Unless the law specifically prohibits disclaimer of liability, there's nothing illegal about a clause that does so. And in the best "be careful what you wish for, as you may get it", you might want to go back and re-read clause 11 and 12 of the GPL, Version 2, and ask yourself if *ANY* GPL'ed software would get released if that clause was illegal. If it was in fact illegal to disclaim liability, clause 7 would totally prohibit you from distributing it *AT ALL*. Then there's the issue of mom-n-pop software shops and small consulting firms - they can't hide behind a "we're giving it away for free" clause in the hypothetical law, but they'd be insane to stay in business without software liability insurance. How many insurance companies are offering *THAT* at rates a 2-5 person consulting firm can afford?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!*** OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? dhtml (Aug 26)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 27)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Fabio Gomes de Souza (Aug 27)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 27)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Ron DuFresne (Aug 28)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Darren Reed (Aug 28)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Alexandre Dulaunoy (Aug 29)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Jeremiah Cornelius (Aug 29)
- Message not available
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Jeremiah Cornelius (Aug 29)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Darren Reed (Aug 30)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? levinson_k (Aug 27)
- Re: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Goncalo Costa (Aug 27)
- RE: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? Nick FitzGerald (Aug 27)