prohibiting use that would result in death or personal injury
Derek J. Balling
dredd at megacity.org
Mon Jul 24 20:49:23 UTC 2000
At 1:23 PM -0700 7/24/00, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
>> Refresher: what we're talking about is whether or not you can get away
>> with "do not use this software for life-safety systems" in an opensource
>> license (violating fields of endeavour) and if you don't disclaim
>> that, are you open to unlimited liability.
>
>Are you sure in your jurisdiction that that applies to transactions
>without "consideration"? E.g., I can buy that for the raft example you
>gave, but you're paying the rafting rental place; no one is paying the
>open source developer for that code (unless they've hired them to do
>so). I do know that courts look much differently at contracts that are
>"without consideration" than those that are. In fact, keeping this in the
>realm of copyright law and *not* contract law may be the clincher - do you
>have any evidence of someone writing a book on some subject, then being
>sued (successfully) when using the information in that book led to some
>unfortunate situation? I think that's a closer comparison than the
>rafting example.
History Lesson: Did MTV win or lose the lawsuit about the kids who
burned down their house after watching Beavis and Butthead playing
with lighters?
I don't know the answer, but the lack of consideration would be
roughly appropriate.
D
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list