mister bean wrote: > This is a theme that goes back quite a few years. Sun essentially wanted to > say that Java should not be used for software on which lives might depend. > Other versions that are more detailed relating to other dangerous activities > and Java have also been used. Apple has used similar warnings in its > licenses. For more on this topic, see > http://yakovfain.javadevelopersjournal.com/java_failure_can_lead_to_death.htm > > Hard to know what course of action could be taken, as you suggest. If Sun > won't support the software in situations where lives are on the line, who > would step up to the plate and assume that liability?
Most open source projects exist within the realm of the author accepting zero liabilities whatsoever (over and above Copyright). This is fair, the author does not underwrite infinite liability for a zero cost. It is also not up to the author to resolve the liability matter for the user; its not their problem. The buck stops with the implementor choosing to make use of said package, if it was a bad choice then its the implementors problem. So if your interpretation of the "don't use technology in places where lives might depend upon it" is correct, maybe the clause can be downgraded from being interpreted as a "license restriction" to being "guidance information" that is not limited to but including all life support applications. Darryl ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ iText-questions mailing list iText-questions@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions Buy the iText book: http://itext.ugent.be/itext-in-action/
