Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <alexan...@schmehl.info> writes: > I still don't understand. Is it prudent to have such a clause, because > someone else could embed a bad script, to be sure we are safe?
That's what I'm saying. As I see it, the potential for legal confusion over who is implicitly warranting the embedded program is a greater risk than simply using a warranty disclaimer in the license terms. > (How could that happen, if someone else causes the problem and > distributes that?) I assume “how could that happen” there refers to the legal confusion. I don't pretend to be an expert, but “The Debian project is a major copyright holder in this work which caused damage to our systems, and there's no warranty disclaimer” isn't particularly implausible. Such a situation would predictably (not inevitably) lead to a court battle over who caused the damage; even if the Debian project knows that it's blameless, that could be expensive to prove in a court case. If a warranty disclaimer can nip that in the bud, by avoiding the need to discuss who did what, it seems like a simple and low-cost way to reduce the risk. I'm not insisting, but it seems that there is little downside to doing so, and a plausible risk is averted; which is why I say it would be prudent to do so. -- \ Eccles: “I just saw the Earth through the clouds!” Lew: “Did | `\ it look round?” Eccles: “Yes, but I don't think it saw me.” | _o__) —The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fx05jwrr....@benfinney.id.au
