Wolfgang Lonien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Gran wrote: >> This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: >>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: >>>> THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY >>>> SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. >>> This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define "should". I'd >>> take it as just being a restatement of the whole "no warranty, if it breaks >>> you get to keep both pieces" thing, but it could be read as forbidding use >>> in the mentioned areas. >> >> The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English >> language. This does not present a problem, as far as I can see. It is >> substantively no different from the standard: >> >> Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent >> permitted by applicable law. >> >> It is a disclaimer telling you they take no responsibility if you use it >> in a situation that endagers human life or property. No problem. > > Sounds good to me.
Except that the reasoning is wrong, as Matthew Palmer pointed out. That's similar, but probably even more strict than the german legal "soll": "soll ist muss wenn kann". Gruß, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
