> 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.
No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own negligence, and frankly, pessimism. This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case history or "de facto" law and left at that. >> 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. (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff says: "I make the law around here!" lol. Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
