Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <email@example.com> writes:
> I still don't understand. Is it prudent to have such a clause, because
> someone else could embed a bad script, to be sure we are safe?
That's what I'm saying. As I see it, the potential for legal confusion
over who is implicitly warranting the embedded program is a greater risk
than simply using a warranty disclaimer in the license terms.
> (How could that happen, if someone else causes the problem and
> distributes that?)
I assume “how could that happen” there refers to the legal confusion. I
don't pretend to be an expert, but “The Debian project is a major
copyright holder in this work which caused damage to our systems, and
there's no warranty disclaimer” isn't particularly implausible.
Such a situation would predictably (not inevitably) lead to a court
battle over who caused the damage; even if the Debian project knows that
it's blameless, that could be expensive to prove in a court case.
If a warranty disclaimer can nip that in the bud, by avoiding the need
to discuss who did what, it seems like a simple and low-cost way to
reduce the risk. I'm not insisting, but it seems that there is little
downside to doing so, and a plausible risk is averted; which is why I
say it would be prudent to do so.
\ Eccles: “I just saw the Earth through the clouds!” Lew: “Did |
`\ it look round?” Eccles: “Yes, but I don't think it saw me.” |
_o__) —The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ |