On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell <[email protected]> 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. -- Chris
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
