On Tuesday 11 Sep 2001 3:09 am, you wrote:
> They are saying that "no warranty" on the license is not
> enough to avoid responsibility in some cases. The company
> using the software has the knowledge, but the investors
> don't, and apparently the investors are succeeding in using
> the "deep pockets" idea of suing whoever is left standing
> once the original company goes under. In an analogy, if you
> were to give out free vodka, warning people not to drink
> and drive, you'd probably still go to jail or lose a
> lawsuit when the drunk actually runs over someone...whoever
> got run over is not bound by your agreements with the
> drunk. It seems wrong that it should be happening, but
> apparently financially concerned third parties are not
> bound by the license between source author and business
> users of the source. Very stupid indeed (or at least that's
> my interpretation in terms of computer source...drunk
> driving is another story).
>
> D. Stimits, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
**What?!** Things are indeed very strange on the other side
of the pond. Over here, if I employ somebody to decorate my
house, he subcontracts it to an idiot who burns the place
down, I can only sue the person I've got the contract with.
There's no "privity of contract" between me and the idiot --
so it's up to the person I employed to sue them to recover
*his* loss.
Two lots of legal fees. Hmm.
IANAL. (and proud of it)
Nick/
UK.
