It's been interesting seeing the back and forth on this,
especially since I kicked off this subthread.
I've found the anti-liability arguments quite persuasive.
Peter Trei
It's been interesting seeing the back and forth on this,
especially since I kicked off this subthread.
I've found the anti-liability arguments quite persuasive.
Peter Trei
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 01:14:10PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
> other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men
> with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Schneier
> has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box)
> technology was driven not by lo
- Original Message -
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eugene Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Black Unicorn'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Prod
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
>Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? No.
>Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No.
I would actually like to make a smaller point here. Broadly I
agree with BU, but I'd like to analyze it a little.
If
On Monday, August 13, 2001, at 10:14 AM, Trei, Peter wrote:
> [I hate to post something that makes it look as if I'm doing further
> BU bashing (which is not my intention), but:...]
>
> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are
> other groups which can apply pressure
> Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> From: "Eugene Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:
> >
> > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least
> > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there
> > > will
> Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> From: "Eugene Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:
> >
> > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least
> > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there
> > > will
