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.
--
Chris