On 04/08/2013 11:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote:
On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
Actually, my current licence can be found here:
https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
about this, Useneters?
I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute
a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
be filed and prosecuted.
Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
offending me, for example. The issue I was poorly raising is whether
such a case would have merit. In the case of free (libre) open source
software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
promises anyone *anything*.
I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs
up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing
to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a
warning sign. Especially if "I" am a company. And especially if I have
an "attractive nuisance" around. There are lots of implied agreements
that have been successfully used by the opposing lawyers.
But someone would have to make the case
and "train" the court. The court simply has not become appraised of
what free, libre, open source software is.
Now you're assuming that there is such a definition, and that the court
could be convinced to follow your interpretation. I claim that no
amateur should try to word his own agreement. Either get an expert to
help, or refer to an agreement that was prepared by such experts. Don't
make the assumption that because something is free, it's somehow immune
from liability.
I expect it's safer to have no agreement at all, than to have one that
gives away privileges without explicitly declaring or disclaiming any
responsibilities.
Really, one shouldn't be
so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
of the People. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
dies, the hospital must be
No, *should* *be*
held responsible, because the open source
developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
Mark
--
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
