On Tue, 15 May 2018 06:39:40 -0700 (PDT) matthewju...@gmail.com wrote: > I don’t think I’m suggesting to not disclaim liability. I’m > suggesting to claim that I didn’t hide anything to make a use break > on purpose. It does add liability, but this is liability that is > completely in the author’s control unlike regular bugs or misuse that
That's where you are wrong. The author has no control over WHAT OTHER PEOPLE CLAIM he did. If he makes a statement that he didn't intentionally put bad things into the code and bad things happen, he ends up having to prove that these are actually bugs and not intentional. And if the developer is unlucky enough to live in the US, this looks like this: * a jury of 12 laypersons, with NO UNDERSTANDING OF CODE WHATSOEVER * a very slick and convincing expert who says that he's reviewed the code and he's 100% certain that this is intentional and not a bug * some awkward nerd claiming it's a bug The 12 laypeople decide who they trust more based on their "soft skills". It's not a coincidence that this whole EULA and total disclaimer BS was started by US organizations. The US legal system is pure madness and US lawyers are like mosquitoes. If you leave just a tiny bit of skin exposed, they'll smell it and will try to land on it to suck your blood. Whatever drawbacks you perceive from the current language in licenses is way less bad than the alternative. MSB -- No man is more pitiful than the one who looks to the shadows for warmth. -- 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.
