David Abrahams wrote: > > IIUC, there are no absolutes here (i.e. no law says "there is an > implicit guarantee"). Legally, it's just a question of what looks > like an attractive/vulnerable target. IIUC, the deal is that without > an explicit disclaimer, lawyers feel they have more leverage in > claiming that there was an implicit guarantee.
Thank you for the explanation. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
