On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:30:46 Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell
<cfarrell(a)suse.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:17:56 Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > The Fedora distribution itself is wrapped with GPLv2, which includes a
> >
> > "no warranty" statement. To what extent does that not apply?
>
> It seems that he is basing his analysis on a negligence claim rather than
> on a contract claim. The real issue would therefore be whether the
> distributor owes a duty to the user - which in turn draws in issues of
> foreseeability.
I hate to mention "that other company," but I think it's pretty clear that
Microsoft has proven there's no legal threat from end users having their
machines compromised by leaving vulnerable services open by default without
informing that user.
I agree. I was just pointing out that the warranty based claim was not the
only one conceivable :-)
--
Ciaran Farrell __o
cfarrell(a)suse.de _`\<,_
Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262 (_)/ (_)
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH,
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer,
HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstraße 5
90409 Nürnberg
Germany
/ˈkiː.ræn/