Re: [go-nuts] Digest for golang-nuts@googlegroups.com - 18 updates in 9 topics

[Pete Wilson]

All this is true.

But I expect that one of these fine days, someone sueable is going to ship software with a serious bug, and are going to get sued and lose because

(i) there’s a lot of money

and 

(ii) it’s well known in the art that doing X is just bloody stupid, and you did X.

And then the quality of software will improve, because not everybody can afford a few billion

— P

On May 13, 2018, at 6:27 PM, golan...@googlegroups.com wrote:

I would point out that a complete disclaimer of liability is fairly common
even in commercial relationships. Just now I downloaded my motherboard's
manual, and had to click through a liability and fitness-for-purpose
disclaimer. So, even someone selling you a $300 enterprise motherboard
doesn't want to be responsible for ensuring *you* are using it in a
sensible fashion.
 

[Jan Mercl]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:33 AM Pete Wilson <pe...@kivadesigngroupe.com> wrote:

> And then the quality of software will improve, because not everybody can afford a few billion

Depends on how you define quality. Catch: bug-free is not a usable definition of software quality. At least while humans write and test it.

--

-j

[Wojciech S. Czarnecki]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 22:28:02 -0500
Pete Wilson <pe...@kivadesigngroupe.com> wrote:

> All this is true.
> But I expect that one of these fine days, someone sueable is going to ship
> software with a serious bug, and are going to get sued and lose

> get sued and lose

Legalese that OP tried to ridicule (imo) says otherwise. They can be sued
but they can not lose, even if they intentionally would put a `rm -rf /` in
the code.

In the law domain:

(i) words, sentences, punctuation even -- have much stricter meaning. Not
necessarily the same as popular one. Sometimes particular wording has
meaning to the contrary of what layman may understand.

(ii) Text written in proper legalese has real life effects. Often immediate
ones -- as with widely approved Open Source licenses.

FYI that enumerated cases in the license disclaimer part stem from past
litigation where someone litigated and won on given case.
See: [1] "Hojgaard v EON" for most recent example.

Disclaimer: always hire a lawyer to read any legalese for you. However
expensive it could be, it might be way cheaper than future effects of your
own understanding of what you read ;). I am not a lawyer of course :).

[1] https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0115.html

--
Wojciech S. Czarnecki
<< ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE

[matthe...@gmail.com]

Legalese that OP tried to ridicule (imo) says otherwise. They can be sued 
but they can not lose, even if they intentionally would put a `rm -rf /` in 
the code. 

I mentioned email addresses being stolen, but I’m more concerned about things like somebody thinking they can use GCC and a regular Dell desktop computer to coordinate real trains. Go/GCC don’t have to make misuse possibly worse.

Matt