Hello,
The gccgo license has this section:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
> A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO E
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 so
>
> Why would you assume more liability than necessary?
My thought is the authors want to gain serious users to increase feedback
quality and improve the developer market. I thought this was why Google let
Go be open source besides attracting academic uses.
And as an open source developer who
On Sun, 13 May 2018 13:01:46 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>I don't think this is the attitude behind GCC, or maybe it is. I want to
>write programs that do things worth money and hope to use Go or GCC to do
>so (including working with and on those projects for free), but if they
>might include unnec
I would point out that a complete disclaimer of liability is fairly common
even in commercial relationships. Just now I downloaded my motherboard's
manual, and had to click through a liability and fitness-for-purpose
disclaimer. So, even someone selling you a $300 enterprise motherboard
doesn't wan
Who would determine whether an mistaken action was intentional? This
seems like a very dangerous inclusion.
On Sun, 2018-05-13 at 08:56 -0700, matthewju...@gmail.com wrote:
> THE AUTHORS OF THIS SOFTWARE DID NOT INTENTIONALLY MAKE MISTAKES OR
> INCLUDE
> PRACTICAL JOKES.
>
> I’m not a lawyer, bu
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:01 PM, wrote:
>> Why would you assume more liability than necessary?
>
>
> My thought is the authors want to gain serious users to increase feedback
> quality and improve the developer market. I thought this was why Google let
> Go be open source besides attracting acade
On Sun, 13 May 2018 22:28:02 -0500
Pete Wilson wrote:
> All this is true.
> But I expect that one of these fine days, someone sueable is going to ship
> software with a serious bug, and are going to get sued and lose
> get sued and lose
Legalese that OP tried to ridicule (imo) says otherwise.
>
> I suspect you are worrying too much given both the long history of
> open source software and the large number of
> groups/organizations/companies that rely on it.
I was reading about the ILOVEYOU Windows virus and recall hearing about it
at the time. In that case the way Windows worked
>
> Legalese that OP tried to ridicule (imo) says otherwise. They can be sued
> but they can not lose, even if they intentionally would put a `rm -rf /`
> in
> the code.
I mentioned email addresses being stolen, but I’m more concerned about
things like somebody thinking they can use GCC and
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 7:25:03 AM UTC-7, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> But you aren't going to get much in the way of guarantees when you
>> receive and use something for free.
>
>
> My work is not free, I want to contribute time back.
>
>>
>>
It's unclear if you understand the implications.
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 disclaiming other liability
stil
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
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Matthias B. wrote:
> 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 lia
I get that we have to work with the legal system details and that they may
cause strange terms. Thanks for sharing some of those US details.
Isn’t there responsibility in putting tools out there publicly for anybody
to use? Perhaps public distribution under the terms “don’t use this” is
irrespo
If you really have legal concerns you should talk to a lawyer. Asking for
anonymous opinion on a forum isn't legal advice. This should certainly not
be the place to discuss legal matters such as the scope of a license. I
don't think anybody who answered you is actually a lawyer. If you come upon
16 matches
Mail list logo
