On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:30:46 Christofer C. Bell wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@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@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/