Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549 --- Comment #40 from Matt McCutchen <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-03 15:56:06 EST --- (In reply to comment #39) > Companies choose to take those risks and liabilities of their own volition, not > as a result of any assurance, warranty, or claim in the GPL. Right. > IANAL, but it > seems that the first portion of the RDL Disclaimer would sever any CACert > liability from "relying inappropriately." CACert's concern over possible > litigation seems to be the driving concern behind the reliance language in the > second portion, but I do not see why the warranty disclaimer is insufficient > for CACert's concern. It would make complete sense that the warranty disclaimer should be enough, but this is a question for the lawyers to puzzle out. In the meantime, I know of a third party repository that has a "nonfree" section and would probably be happy to carry the package given that they use CAcert certificates themselves. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review