On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their > > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his > > statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not > > allowed to offer it. Then you offer it on your server and some of your > > customers has a huge problem with that software and wants to sue someone > > to cover their losses. Now the company that developed the software says > > you were never allowed to offer it and with their own version your > > customer wouldn't have got into trouble. > > I don't think they'd be able to make a case with that, unless they can > prove that we seriously tampered with their software and that our > version is totally different from theirs. Since they've been doing most > of the packaging work themselves, I think that's going to be very, > *very* hard. > > If I ask you to please do something, I can't then suddenly turn around > and say that you shouln't have actually been doing that something. That > would be dishonest, and I can't win a case in court by being dishonest.
Well, is there a shiny piece of paper, or verifiable gpg signed message, or anything else actually tangable that could be taken to court that says "this guy there said it was OK"? > > See I'm talking about a legal problem that isn't solvable by just > > removing software. > > No you're not. You're talking about an issue that only exists in > fantasy. I think that you're missing the word "currently" in that sentence. Cheers, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
