On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:17:56 Paul W. Frields wrote:
> The Fedora distribution itself is wrapped with GPLv2, which includes a
> "no warranty" statement.ÂÂTo what extent does that not apply?
It seems that he is basing his analysis on a negligence claim rather than on a contract claim. The real issue would therefore be whether the distributor owes a duty to the user - which in turn draws in issues of foreseeability.
I hate to mention "that other company," but I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft has proven there's no legal threat from end users having their machines compromised by leaving vulnerable services open by default without informing that user.
Â
Chris
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
