Re: mICQ roundup
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:10, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 10:38:34PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > 1. the action as taken by Rüdiger;
> > 2. expressing remorse for 1 or lack thereof; and
> > 3. implementing harmful code (i.e. involving harm outside the
> > not-functioning of the package itself; also note that in this case a
> > solution was presented immediately by the message).
> >
> > True, but that doesn't change the fact that 1, 2, and 3 above have
> > /very/ little to do with each other, and that 1 and 2 have no predictive
> > value for the likeliness of 3, especially because I consider that in a
> > completely different league.
>
> Do we agree, at least, that #1 combined with #2 indicates that it's very
> likely that he would be willing to repeat #1 in some form? Whether or
> not it leads to #3, I don't think people who are willing to put obfuscated
> time-bombs in their code should have their code in Debian.
I agree that 1 + 2 = 3.
> > However, the harm stops at this trust, because most DFSG-free licenses
> > have this nice disclaimer: no warranty of any kind, including fitness
> > for any particular purpose.
>
> That means he probably doesn't have any legal liability; that's OK, since
> I don't think anyone is suggesting he be sued. I don't think it's relevant
> beyond that.
You can disclaim warantees etc, but even that is not complete. If it can be
shown that it is most likely that you failed to show adequate care to prevent
problems then you can still be sued regardless of those disclaimers. If it
can be shown that it is most likely that you had hostile intent then all
disclaimers are void.
Also in the case of criminal prosecution disclaimers are void.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: