|
On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:30:46 Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. To 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. I agree. I was just pointing out that the warranty based claim was not the only one conceivable :-) -- Ciaran Farrell __o cfarrell@xxxxxxx _`\<,_ Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix ImendÃrffer, HRB 16746 (AG NÃrnberg) MaxfeldstraÃe 5 90409 NÃrnberg Germany /ËkiË.rÃn/ |
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
