On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:30:46 Christofer C. Bell wrote: > 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.
I agree. I was just pointing out that the warranty based claim was not the only one conceivable :-) -- Ciaran Farrell __o [email protected] _`\<,_ Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany /ˈkiː.ræn/
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
