From my limited legal understanding, which being so limited can only be
considered an unlearned opinion, I think that the clause "arising out of
your use of the Software" limits the entire paragraph.
Obviously, if I were to write a malicious virus in D, no one ought to
sue Walter. They should sue me, right? I mean, that's what I would think.
If someone did sue Walter, he might sue me, for the damages I did to him
and D, by using it to write a virus. Unless he just felt like being a
nice guy.
Of course, all this banter is really just hypothesizing and talking
about personal, mostly irrelevant, opinions. Again, you need to contact
and discuss this issue with a lawyer who has passed through your
region's licensing requirements to be able to properly (and legally)
advise you on this matter.
-[Unknown]
Chris wrote:
"Unknown W. Brackets"
That is a very common clause. The idea, as far as I understand, is that
if the compiler were to break - and your client were to sue you because of
this - you can't sue down the chain.
I am familiar with the clause you are talking about (and I basically agree
with it), but the D licence clause seems much different.
Infact it says that if someone (even unrelated to my businnes) caused
them pratically every type of "cost", I have to indemnify them (who
exactly?), simply because that cost "arose out" of my use (not misuse)
of the Software.
And note that the chain you are referring to, don't have to pass through me.
If a normal limitation of responsability was the intent, then the clause is
a thousand times wide.
