im.py: a python communications tool

[Jake D]

Hey Usenetites!
I have a horrible Python program to allow two people to chat with each
other. It has horribly any functionality, but it is meant for the
public to work on, not necessarily me. Anyways, here's a quick FAQ.

What does this do that IRC can't? What does this do that AIM can't?
--It allows direct communication between two computers, whereas IRC
doesn't. And AIM and similar services require a username, etc. This
is made specifically for two users on a network to chat.
What version of Python is this written in?
--Python 2.7.3.
What is the licence?
--It's released under a special FOSS licence. Here it is:
----You can do whatever you want with this program.

Alright, now, here's the code:

#!/usr/bin/python
#An instant messaging program implemented in Python.
#Created on Sunday, December 30, 2012 (long before it's Usenet
publication)

import socket
import sys
import threading

def server_listen():
while True:
r = c.recv(8192)

if r == "\quit":
c.close()
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

print con_addr[0], ": " + r

def client_listen():
while True:
r = s.recv(8192)

if r == "\quit":
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

print sys.argv[1], ": " + r

s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)

if sys.argv[1] == "-l":
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
s.bind(('', 5067))
s.listen(5)
c, con_addr = s.accept()

while True:
r = c.recv(8192)

if r == "\quit":
c.close()
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

print con_addr[0], ": " + r
i = raw_input("You: ")

if i == "\quit":
c.send("\quit")
c.close()
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

c.send(i)

else:
s.connect((socket.gethostbyname(sys.argv[1]), 5067))
print "Chat initiated with " + sys.argv[1] + "!"

while True:
i = raw_input("You: ")

if i == "\quit":
s.send("\quit")
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

s.send(i)
r = s.recv(8192)

if r == "\quit":
s.close()
sys.exit(0)

print sys.argv[1] + ": " + r

I encourage people to modify this code, because really, it sucks.
Enjoy!

[Demian Brecht]

Thanks for sharing some of your work with the community. However...

Speaking to the sharing aspect: Why would you post a block of code in an email? If you're looking for people to contribute, it would likely be a much better idea to post it on github (which was built for collaborative work).

As for the code itself, if you /know/ it sucks and are advertising it as such, you're not really enticing people to work on it. In its current state, it looks like a non-extensible prototype, just poking around to see how you can achieve a p2p connectivity, without doing /any/ research (supporting modules, etc) or design before just starting to throw something together.

I'd venture to say that the chances of actually getting anyone to contribute to this in its current state (especially purely over a mailing list) would be slim to none. People generally tend to want to see that there's actually effort and thought put into something before they put /their/ own time into it.

[Roy Smith]

In article
<bc3d27b1-fdf6-4931...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Jake D <jhunter....@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the licence?
> --It's released under a special FOSS licence. Here it is:
> ----You can do whatever you want with this program.

I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
licenses. Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL,
etc) licenses, and use that.

I used to work for a very large corporation. The legal department was
(quite reasonably) concerned about use of FOSS, and all open source
software we used needed to pass legal review.

They were looking for two things. First, that the license didn't
obligate the company to anything it didn't want to be obligated to (i.e.
they wouldn't allow GPL3). Second, that YOU understood the terms of the
license and had a plan in place to comply with all the requirements.

The lawyers knew all the major licenses. If you showed up with
something that was known (and acceptable) to them, the process was quick
and (relatively) painless. If you showed up with some license they had
no experience with, they would go off into a huddle and not come out
until they were sure they understood it.

The usual result was that anything that came with a one-off license was
probably more trouble to get approved than it was worth.

[Mark Janssen]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bc3d27b1-fdf6-4931...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jake D <jhunter....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the licence?
>> --It's released under a special FOSS licence. Here it is:
>> ----You can do whatever you want with this program.
>
> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
> licenses. Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL,

> etc) licenses, and use that. [...]

That all being said, and excellent policy and commentary in general,
no one should have trouble interpreting "do whatever you want with
it", legally or otherwise.

Mark

[Andrew Berg]

On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
> licenses.

Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
--
CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

[Jake D]

Yep. As a matter of fact, I did.

[Jake D]

Jeez, harsh. I __am__ putting this on github, and I __am__ coming
back to this program and working on it now.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Andrew Berg <bahamut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:
>> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
>> licenses.
> Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/

I like the Python Powered Logo license by Just van Rossum (Guido's
brother, in case someone doesn't know..)

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-December/013413.html

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[jhunter....@gmail.com]

Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think about this, Useneters?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:

> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
> about this, Useneters?

I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.

Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?

E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT


Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people
write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal
boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I
know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they
want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"?

Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain.



--
Steven

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>
>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
>> about this, Useneters?
>
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
> MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?
>
> E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Plus there's the whole brevity thing. If I see something that says
"MIT license", I don't need to read the details. Compare the README
for one of my projects:

https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/blob/master/README

(Actually, I need to update that; there are a few solved problems
listed there as still open.) You read "Licensed under the BSD Open
Source license" and then you can stop reading - you know what your
rights are. The lawyers at Roy Smith's company would have no trouble
comprehending this, and no trouble deciding whether or not it's
allowed - they either do or do not (there is no try).

License proliferation is actually a major problem. If I were to lift
code from your program and incorporate it into something GPL3, am I
violating either's terms? What if I want to put that code into
something BSD 2-clause? Am I allowed? At least if you use a well-known
license, I can do a quick web search, coming up with something like
[1], but a custom or unusual license would require careful analysis of
terms.

[1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html

ChrisA

[Jake D]

On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve

+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
> > Actually, my current licence can be found here:
> >https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
> > about this, Useneters?
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
> MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?
>

> E.g.http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

>
> Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people
> write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal
> boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I
> know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they
> want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"?
>
> Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain.
>
> --
> Steven

MIT is actually the best one I've seen so far. I'm updating LICENCE.

[Mark Janssen]

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>
>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
>> about this, Useneters?
>
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.

Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
they never entered into an agreement, not did you.

Mark Janssen
Tacoma, Washington.

[Dave Angel]

On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:

>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
>>> about this, Useneters?
>>
>>
>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>

> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>

That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to
institute a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer,
but I've been advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the
likelihood that a lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee
that a lawsuit cannot be filed and prosecuted.

Besides, an open-ended license might be acted on anywhere in the world,
and who knows what some other jurisdictions might permit/require.


--
DaveA

[Mark Janssen]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>>

>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
>>>> about this, Useneters?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>>
>>

>> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
>> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>>
>
> That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute
> a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
> advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
> lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
> be filed and prosecuted.

Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
offending me, for example. The issue I was poorly raising is whether
such a case would have merit. In the case of free (libre) open source
software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
promises anyone *anything*. But someone would have to make the case
and "train" the court. The court simply has not become appraised of
what free, libre, open source software is. Really, one shouldn't be
so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
of the People. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
dies, the hospital must be held responsible, because the open source
developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.

Mark

[Dave Angel]

On 04/08/2013 11:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>>> <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>>>

>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think
>>>>> about this, Useneters?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>>>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>>>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>>>
>>>

>>> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
>>> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>>>
>>
>> That's a common misconception. No prior agreement is necessary to institute
>> a lawsuit, at least in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
>> advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
>> lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
>> be filed and prosecuted.
>
> Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
> offending me, for example. The issue I was poorly raising is whether
> such a case would have merit. In the case of free (libre) open source
> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
> promises anyone *anything*.

I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs
up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing
to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a
warning sign. Especially if "I" am a company. And especially if I have
an "attractive nuisance" around. There are lots of implied agreements
that have been successfully used by the opposing lawyers.

But someone would have to make the case
> and "train" the court. The court simply has not become appraised of
> what free, libre, open source software is.

Now you're assuming that there is such a definition, and that the court
could be convinced to follow your interpretation. I claim that no
amateur should try to word his own agreement. Either get an expert to
help, or refer to an agreement that was prepared by such experts. Don't
make the assumption that because something is free, it's somehow immune
from liability.

I expect it's safer to have no agreement at all, than to have one that
gives away privileges without explicitly declaring or disclaiming any
responsibilities.

> Really, one shouldn't be
> so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
> this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
> of the People. If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
> dies, the hospital must be

No, *should* *be*

> held responsible, because the open source
> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> Mark
>
>

--
DaveA

[Mark Janssen]

> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up
> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the
> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign.

No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By
propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.

This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar
suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case
history or "de facto" law and left at that.

>> If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
>> dies, the hospital must be
>
> No, *should* *be*
>
>> held responsible, because the open source
>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.

(re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff
says: "I make the law around here!" lol.

Mark

[Demian Brecht]

We're /definitely/ on topic for this list.

Just saying.

> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list



--
Demian Brecht
http://demianbrecht.github.com

[Dave Angel]

On 04/09/2013 02:20 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs up
>> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the
>> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign.
>
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution. By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
> to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
> own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.

I like to be pessimistic when signing the documents that might ruin my
own future. In my last job, I told the company lawyers I would not
accept the NDA as they supplied it, and they claimed I was the first one
to successfully force a new version. As HR put it, most people don't
even read it, they figure it's a requirement to work.

>
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
> the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
> land. People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
> continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
> propagated earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar
> suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
> somewhere in the judicial system. It should not be considered case
> history or "de facto" law and left at that.
>
>>> If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
>>> dies, the hospital must be
>>
>> No, *should* *be*
>>
>>> held responsible, because the open source
>>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
>>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
> the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer. Like the sheriff
> says: "I make the law around here!" lol.
>

I can't really argue your points, and once a challenge is made, I'm
thoroughly in agreement. But it's much easier to keep things clear from
the beginning, and I've been assuming our job here was to advise the OP
on whether his plan for a license agreement is good. Years ago I
managed to get our company lawyers to approve the use of "free" software
for internal use, but getting the custom license agreement past them was
like pulling teeth.


--
DaveA

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:20:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either. If a burglar climbs
>> up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes
>> crashing to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not
>> having a warning sign.
>
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.

Which Constitution is that? The Russian Constitution? Italian? Japanese?
Brazilian? New Zealand? Serbian? South African?

> By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to
> our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own
> negligence, and frankly, pessimism.
>
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the
> Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone here is a Yankie.

> People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually
> be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated
> earlier. We're not victims here. The story of a burglar suing a
> homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax,

Maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant. We're not talking about somebody
breaking into your home to steal your DVD, and on the way in, being
injured by your software. We're talking about somebody using your
software, *with your explicit permission*, and then having it cause them
harm by being unfit for the purpose advertised.

If you don't disclaim warranty, and even sometimes if you do, there is an
implicit warranty that your goods will be fit for their purpose in many
jurisdictions. In some places that may only apply if money changes hands;
in other places it will apply regardless.


--
Steven

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the case of free (libre) open source
> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
> promises anyone *anything*.

If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.

ChrisA

[Mark Janssen]

It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's
no expectation that you're getting anything at all! Where does
everyone come up with these bullshit ideas? And them let them stand
as de facto law?

Mark

[Chris Angelico]

Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
it to protect me.

ChrisA

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:20:27 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen
>> <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would
>>> have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*.
>>
>> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
>> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
>> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.
>
> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no
> expectation that you're getting anything at all!

Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you
a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise.
If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a
gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/newsmakers/oprah_car_tax/index.htm

And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it
was designed.

> Where does everyone
> come up with these bullshit ideas?

I've been wondering exactly the same thing...



--
Steven

[Mark Janssen]

> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
> it to protect me.

I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you
a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? If no
money changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument
of the absurd and should be inadmissible.

Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

Mark

[Mark Janssen]

>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no
>> expectation that you're getting anything at all!
>
> Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
> she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you
> a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise.
> If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a
> gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.

But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise.
If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1
(!)

Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.
Legally, the issue is not so much that she's a public figure, but that
she's making a *published* claim. It could be Joe Blow posting a
notice around town making the claim. Now such claims don't have much
legal standing, because a lawyer could argue that Joe Blow is a nut
job and such offers can't be trusted. If you want grounds for breach
of a promise you better get it in writing and counter-signed.

> And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
> and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
> standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it
> was designed.

Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the
car company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the
one who designed it.

Mark

[Mark Janssen]

> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.

By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race
or something. Lawyers are people, that have been trained into a
historical system of conventions. That doesn't necessarily make them
good counselors, and conversely non-lawyers can be better defenders
than "lawyers". As long as this (US) is a constitutional republic, it
is of, by and for, the people. There is legally no grounds to deprive
a citizen of a fair trial even if they don't have lawyer. The
Establishment has been intimidating people for too long.

I'm just calling it out, so my crowd (can I call it that?) doesn't
give away it's power.

Mark.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:39:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>> it to protect me.
>
> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a
> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?

Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

Is there an implied promise that the rose I gave you will have a scent? I
don't think so, there are many roses that don't have a scent.

There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe. If I lace
the rose with a toxic chemical, and you get sick after handling it, you
probably could sue me even if the rose was a free gift.

And so you should -- if I am stupid, careless or malicious enough to hand
out toxic products that cause harm, I ought to take responsibility for my
actions. If I won't take responsibility, then the law enforcement and
legal systems ought to force me to take responsibility.

> If no money
> changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the
> absurd and should be inadmissible.

I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality. In
reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.
For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
plaintiffs.

Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
effective legal licence?

> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
thoughts into your head.


--
Steven

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:15:04 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.
>
> By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
> notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or
> something.

You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You
wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken
leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a
land war in Asia.

Sure, Mike the Personal Injury Lawyer happens to also be a hotshot
programmer with 35 years of experience in C, Fortran, Lisp, Python, Perl,
Java, Ruby, PHP, Smalltalk and Haskell. Good for him, and if you know
him, then maybe you would ask him programming questions in preference to
a lot of programmers. But that's Mike. 99% of lawyers have no idea about
the difference between a hash table and a linked list, and 30% think that
cloud computing has something to do with real clouds.

Dave might be an awesome car mechanic who can fix anything with an
engine, but that doesn't mean he knows shit about what sort of licence
and warranty disclaimer is best.

It's just damn common sense that, when faced with a legal issue, you ask
a legal expert, not a programmer or a butcher or a candle-stick maker.

http://demotivationalblog.com/demotivational/2010/03/common-sense.jpg



--
Steven

[Mark Janssen]

>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>>> it to protect me.
>>
>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a
>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?
>
> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see....

> There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe.

> I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality.

Okay.

> In
> reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
> purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.

To the extent that Free Software isn't sold, it's not a product. To
the extent that the software is taken at the effort of the user,
rather than *given* by the programmer, there is no purpose -- neither
explicitly or *implicitly* implied. Just like if I were to pick off a
teddybear on a table sitting on a curb with a sign that says "free".
Ask yourself, tin-foil-hatless man, why don't you suggest a sign that
says "take at your own risk, no warranty implied"? Because you don't
want to make a society that is that stupid about things, that's why.
Now stop pandering to the bar association.

You've accepted the market mentality and applied it to our world of
free and open source software. It's supposed to be about community
and having fun.

> For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
> you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
> plaintiffs.

That might be, but if you include such a wily lawyer could suggest
that by the very act of including a legal disclaimer you're moved
yourself into a contract negotiation and are expected to be more
strict in your terms.

> Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
> effective legal licence?

I told you above. I don't want a world like you're suggesting where
people can't just say "you can do what you want with this software",
but should be lawyers instead.

>> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.
>
> You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
> thoughts into your head.

I know. It got you didn't it. But you'll note that Latin is also
used as a language of the court. If you want tin foil hats, though,
you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? It's you who
have the burden of explanation brother, because it doesn't make any
sense without going to outer space.

Mark

[Mark Janssen]

>> By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
>> notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or
>> something.
>
> You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You
> wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken
> leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a
> land war in Asia.

Yeah and a programmer wouldn't go to a lawyer to GIVE SOMETHING AWAY
FOR FREE! I mean I couldn't brainwash this kind of common sense into
a person.

Mark

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:02:14 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's
>>> no expectation that you're getting anything at all!
>>
>> Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
>> she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives
>> you a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of
>> promise. If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather
>> than a gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.
>
> But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
> making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
> that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. If
> I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 (!)

And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT
DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you
have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does.

If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for
people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed
yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to
take responsibility for their carelessness? Don't you think that it is
pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for
the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS-
infected needle!"

The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick
will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say
it does. If it doesn't, and people are harmed by that, then you ought to
live up to your responsibility. Or, *you warn them ahead of time* that
you take no responsibility, with an explicit warranty disclaimer.


WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles.
Eat at your own risk!

> Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.

The fact that she's a public figure is irrelevant.


[...]

>> And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
>> and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
>> standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose
>> it was designed.
>
> Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
> argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car
> company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one
> who designed it.

That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that
your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company
that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it
is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the
manufacturer.

Other places might decide that Oprah's company had no duty of care to
ensure that the car was in a fit state, and responsibility was entirely
on the car manufacturer. Some places might reason that you can sue both,
and it is up to the court to decide what percentage of responsibility
each party must take. Which case it is will depend on the laws of
whichever place has legal jurisdiction.



--
Steven

[Dave Angel]

On 04/09/2013 05:00 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
>>> notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or
>>> something.
>>
>> You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You
>> wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken
>> leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a
>> land war in Asia.
>

> Yeah and a programmer wouldn't go to a lawyer to GIVE SOMETHING AWAY
> FOR FREE! I mean I couldn't brainwash this kind of common sense into
> a person.
>

And the same thinking would say that there's no need to ever change the
oil in a car, just add more when the dipstick gets too low. And no need
to kill the weeds in a lawn, just keep spreading more grass seed. And
no need to call a plumber for a leak, just wrap it in lots of duct tape.
And no need for liability insurance for your house, as nobody's gotten
hurt yet. And no need to hire a programmer for a payroll program, just
let Jimmy the receptionist write it in his spare time.

I recently talked to a small business entrepreneur who thought she
didn't have to charge or file sales tax, because her business was still
small. Her accountant told her that was fine. I told her to ask a lawyer.

Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some
of the time.


--
DaveA

[Mark Janssen]

> And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT
> DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you
> have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does.

No, there is no requirement for a disclaimer. In the US, what is not
explicitly restricted by the law is withheld by the citizen. I don't
have to give a disclaimer if my intentions are in good faith.

And further, I'm not saying that it's fit for a purpose in some
trade-like agreement. So I'm not in possible breach of any agreement
whatsoever.

> If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for
> people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed
> yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to
> take responsibility for their carelessness?

If I go to a freebiebox placed outside a restaurant with such, no, I'm
taking responsibility. "Caveat emptor" as they say and here's there's
no buyer.
If I go to a table and there are free breadstix on the table and start
eating them without intentions to pay, then I'm the shithole.
If I get infected from some food at a restaurant which I paid for,
then each side will have to argue their case. The court may find
negligence on the side of the restaurant, or it may not.

> Don't you think that it is
> pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for
> the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS-
> infected needle!"

Hey, you know it's expected that if someone gets hurt from something
you provided, but you didnt' intend it on them and didn't make any
money off of them, that you still say you're sorry. Each person in a
government of the people is expected to do their fair part in using
commonsense. The courts can't deal with every little squabble.

> The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick
> will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say
> it does.

No to the latter. As for the former, if I'm at a restaurant I'm
entering a business relationship. The cost of the breadsticks are
already bundled in the other food you are *expected* to order.

> WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles.
> Eat at your own risk!

Here again your letting the Novus Ordo "market mentality" dominate
your thinking when it should be on about person-to-person simple
interactions. Unless of course, you've allowed corporations to be
people, and your in a corporate restaurant, please no.

>> Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
>> argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car
>> company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one
>> who designed it.
>
> That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that
> your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company
> that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it
> is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the
> manufacturer.

Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care", because
you're not a child being taken care of and Oprah is not someone acting
"in loco parentis". The 14th(?) amendment give equal treatment under
the law, there's no duty of care unless you can argue that it's
expected of your adult ass getting on TV.

MarkJ

[Mark Janssen]

> Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some of
> the time.

You know, Dave.... funny thing is, right there is one of them.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want tin foil hats, though,
> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye?

I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
all-seeing-eye.

ChrisA
(And yeah, a mob of animals. You'll either know or not know why it's a mob.)

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you want tin foil hats, though,
>>> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
>>> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
>>> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye?
>>
>> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
>> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
>> all-seeing-eye.
>

> Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech
> because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for
> basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this
> true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they
> entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American
> near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that
> continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this
> while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some
> far-away land that they hardly know?

Okay. I've read your post. Read it again. Rubbed my eyes in case there
was something in them and gone back for another read. And I can't
conjure any response but this:

Wut?

ChrisA

[Jake D]

I just put out a new version of im.py on GitHub. You can find it
here:
https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/im.py

[Mark Janssen]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want tin foil hats, though,
>> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
>> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
>> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye?
>
> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
> all-seeing-eye.

Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech
because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for
basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this
true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they
entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American
near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that
continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this
while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some
far-away land that they hardly know?

Mark

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:40:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If you want tin foil hats, though,
>> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you already
>> have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. Egyptian
>> pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye?
>
> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
> all-seeing-eye.

It must be counterfeit!

Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely.


--
Steven

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 02:29:43 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care"

That explains a lot.


--
Steven

[Chris Angelico]

Ahh, you studied counterfeit-recognition under the tutelage of Dennis
Bloodnok, I see.

ChrisA

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-04-09, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>> it to protect me.
>
> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you
> a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?

He might. To win, he'd first have to show standing: he'd have to
prove that he was harmed (directly or indirectly by your action).

> If no money changed hands?

[As usual: IANAL so consule a real lawyer before giving away roses
that don't smell like roses.]

Doesn't matter. What matters first is harm. Once he establishes that
he was harmed because the rose didn't smell, then the question of
responsibility for that harm arises.

Did you intend the harm? Did you forsee (or should have forseen) the
harm? Did you warn him about the possibility of harm or take any
other actions to prevent forseeable harm?

> I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the absurd and
> should be inadmissible.

Absurdity has nothing to with it, we're talking about the law. :)

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! But they went to MARS
at around 1953!!
gmail.com

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-04-09, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>>>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>>>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>>>> it to protect me.
>>>
>>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a
>>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?
>>
>> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
>> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
>> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
>> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.
>
> What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see....

[In the US]

1) You've got to show that the prick was harmful enough to you that
it merits legal remedy.

2) You've got to show that you had a reasonable expectation that
roses didn't have thorns.

3) You've got to show that whoever gave you the rose should have
forseen that would be harmed.

4) For extra bonus points, you try to show that whoever gave you the
rose knew you would be harmed or indended to harm you.

[In some areas of civil law, you can cash in your bonus points from
step four for treble damages!]

Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
legal system works?

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! UH-OH!! I put on
at "GREAT HEAD-ON TRAIN
gmail.com COLLISIONS of the 50's"
by mistake!!!

[Mark Lawrence]

On 09/04/2013 08:21, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In the case of free (libre) open source
>>>> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
>>>> promises anyone *anything*.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
>>> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
>>> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.
>>

>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's

>> no expectation that you're getting anything at all! Where does
>> everyone come up with these bullshit ideas? And them let them stand
>> as de facto law?
>

> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
> it to protect me.
>

> ChrisA
>

The same place that he came up with this thread "Message passing syntax
for objects" on Python ideas? What the BDFL thought of it here
http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-ideas/20043/

--
If you're using GoogleCrap� please read this
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython.

Mark Lawrence

[Mark Janssen]

> Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
> legal system works?

Gads. I'm trying to show you how the legal system *doesn't* work.
All your points may be valid under court history, but that history is
tainted. It doesn't mean the system is working, only that cases have
been decided. And the court should not be ruling on issues of such
accidents because guilt cannot established ("accidents" where there
was no intention of harm, nor tacit agreement made between any
parties) like a person giving a rose to their neighbor in an act of
good will. Such events should use mediators, not judges because their
is no *law* to be decided. The judges, or course, can act as
mediators, but the court system seems bogged down enough already.

I mean really, a good-will act? The Good Samaritan rules already
establish that you can't sue people for good faith acts. Do you
really want a world where *good intentions* are penalized? Come on --
that's why the system is broken and shame on every citizen that
continues this error in system of the People. It doesn't matter if
people get harmed, as long as good faith is in place before and after
the event. The "system" shouldn't get dragged in because you want to
act like a child and get your daddy to help you.

Mark

[Mark Janssen]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Prasad, Ramit
<ramit....@jpmorgan.com> wrote:

> Mark Janssen wrote:
>> But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
>> making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
>> that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise.
>> If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1
>> (!)
>

> Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
> publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility
> of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is
> supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer.

It is akin to publishing it. The law has not made a good distinction
about responsibility in this area. But I'm telling you that unless
money is exchanged THERE IS NO AGREEMENT MADE, implicit or otherwise.
If there is no agreement, then another party can't blame you for
something you didn't promise. Otherwise, I can blame you for
insulting my fashion sense.

> On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
> and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you
> still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees?

If someone brings you to court and fails to make their case, they've
inconvenienced everyone. The fair thing would be for the court to
require them to pay for your fees.

>And
> getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.

Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system. Judges can
be quite reasonable. They don't want more time taken for bullshit
cases and would much prefer for things to be settled (that is what
their duty is -- to settle matters, not to make lawyers wealthy).

Mark

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2013-04-12, Mark Janssen <dreamin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system.
> Judges can be quite reasonable. They don't want more time
> taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be
> settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not
> to make lawyers wealthy).

Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter.

--
Neil Cerutti

[Prasad, Ramit]

Mark Janssen wrote:
> >> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no
> >> expectation that you're getting anything at all!
> >
> > Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
> > she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you
> > a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise.
> > If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a
> > gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.
>

> But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
> making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
> that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise.
> If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1
> (!)

Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility
of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is
supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer.

On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you

still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees? And

getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.

~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.

[Prasad, Ramit]

He is not completely wishful (for USA).
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/11/u-s-judge-expresses-frustration-at-apples-and-googles-use-of-litigation-as-business-strategy/

Of course, not sure if the frustration will actually lead to
an action or is just idle talk.