Well sure, if I stated that I agree to be responsible for whatever defect, past present and future, the SL viewer may introduce, but I'm not crazy, and I doubt anybody else would be either. This is called an abusive clause and that does not stand in court. Therefore, I do not see the "no warranty" clause go away, nor us be expected to remove it ourselves. And therefore I do not see us being sued by users for whatever bug they may encounter.
But I might be over-optimistic, as usual. On 30 mars 2010, at 10:17, Gareth Nelson <gar...@garethnelson.com> wrote: >> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be >> liable >> when first hand code is not. > > Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten > rather than rely on it not standing up in court _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
