prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury

[Rick Moen]

begin Derek J. Balling quotation:

> No, I was just addressing the comment of "well, the disclaimer clause
> is enough and it just requires judges ruling the correct way"
> (paraphrased), to which I was indicating that what you and I consider
> "correct" may not match the legal statutes of some jurisdictions
> (where the disclaimer clause may specifically NOT be worth anything in
> terms of removing liability).

You're missing all of one point I made, and most of the other:

(1) I was saying that listing specific proscribed roles for the software
is futile, since you cannot even begin to cover the territory of
situations where its defects can be claimed to cause loss.  (2) In light
of which, the author's main protection is probably his reasonable hope
that judges will observe the economic substance of the situation plus
the up-front, unconcealed intent to have no warranty, and decide that 
imputing liability would be inequitable.

This has nothing to do with particular jurisdictions, rendering your
objections off-point.

Now, I really don't like discussions in which I'm obliged to say
everything twice, so please let's _not_ have another round.

-- 
Cheers,                              "Open your present...."
Rick Moen                            "No, you open your present...."
rick (at) linuxmafia.com             Kaczinski Christmas.
               --  Unabomber Haiku Contest, CyberLaw mailing list