Mark Janssen writes: > Since there's no way (even theoretical way) to completely secure anything > (remember the DVD protection wars?), there's no way there should be any > liability if reasonable diligence is performed to provide security where > expected (which is probably calculable to some %-age of assets > protected).
That's not how the law works, sorry. Look up "consequential damages," "contributory negligence," and "attractive nuisance." I'm not saying that anybody will lose *in* court, but one can surely be taken *to* court. If that happens to you, you've already lost (even if the other side can't win). > Open sourcing code could be said to be a disclaimer on any liability as > your letting people know that you've got nothing your trying to > conceal. Again, you seem to be revealing your ignorance of the law (not to mention security -- a safe is supposed to be secure even if the burglar has the blueprints). A comprehensive and presumably effective disclaimer is part of the license, but it's not clear that even that works. AFAIK such disclaimers are not well-tested in court. Guido is absolutely right. There is a risk here (not in the frozendict type, of course), but in distributing an allegedly effective sandbox. I doubt Victor as an individual doing research has a problem; the PSF is another matter. BTW, Larry Rosen's book on Open Source Licensing is a good reference. Andrew St. Laurent also has a book out, I like Larry's better but YMMV. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
