On Sun, 13 May 2018 08:56:08 -0700 (PDT) matthewju...@gmail.com wrote: > My tools are my responsibility, so I’m wondering what stops the GCC, > Go, or other open source authors from including practical jokes.
That depends on the jurisdiction and the kind of practical joke. But it's a fact that software has contained practical jokes in the past, in particular in cases where the software determined that it was running without a proper license. So this does indeed happen and I've not heard of any developer being sued for it. > These license terms seem to remove all responsibility, and in certain > hands that is an opportunity to cause some chaos. Why isn’t there a > license section about intention of code implementation matching > stated goals? Ask yourself: If you can choose between having NO LIABILITY and having just a little bit of liability, which option do you choose? Why would you assume more liability than necessary? Are you Jesus or Gandhi? > > THE AUTHORS OF THIS SOFTWARE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY MAKE MISTAKES OR > INCLUDE PRACTICAL JOKES. > > I’m not a lawyer, but I’d feel better about these tools if there was > something like that followed by the fitness disclaimer. And as an open source developer who does not get paid, I feel better if I have no liability whatsoever. Now, if you were PAYING ME for my services, then I will be happy to provide you with assurances that make you feel better. MSB -- A naked man with a can of beans can eat only one meal but play a hundred soccer games. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
