This one time, at band camp, Frank Küster said: > Wolfgang Lonien <wolfgang@lonien.de> wrote: > > > Stephen Gran wrote: > >> This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: > >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: > >>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY > >>>> SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. > >>> This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define "should". I'd > >>> take it as just being a restatement of the whole "no warranty, if it breaks > >>> you get to keep both pieces" thing, but it could be read as forbidding use > >>> in the mentioned areas. > >> > >> The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English > >> language. This does not present a problem, as far as I can see. It is > >> substantively no different from the standard: > >> > >> Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent > >> permitted by applicable law. > >> > >> It is a disclaimer telling you they take no responsibility if you use it > >> in a situation that endagers human life or property. No problem. > > > > Sounds good to me. > > Except that the reasoning is wrong, as Matthew Palmer pointed out. > That's similar, but probably even more strict than the german legal > "soll": "soll ist muss wenn kann". I don't believe this is correct. Sollen and should are often used in translations of each other, but (not being very good at German, I may be wrong) I have always felt that solen was closer to the old English shalt than to the modern should. Shalt (and the more modern but not often used shall) was definitely an imperative, as in 'Thou shalt have no other Gods', whereas should is a request, as in the RFC definition: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. This states the meaning better than I can. It means that they prefer you don't violate this, but you are free to violate it if you wish, although it isn't recommended. This is substantively equivalent to other 'no warranty' disclaimers. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature