[opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?
blakar at gmail.com
Thu Apr 1 07:02:35 PDT 2010
Maybe you should ponder awhile about what "responsible" actually
implies within this context. You seem to think you're not responsible
for code you develop or distribute thanks to the GPL. Let us travel
back a bit in time to when the US thought that they should control
cryptography related software. Do you really believe that US citizens
would've been guaranteed safety from prosecution if they openly
exported GPL'd cryptographic software?
The GPL clearly includes "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW"
if you wonder in how far Sections 11 and 12 can help you out. That
part of the GPL basically should help you understand that distributing
software is a risk unless you know _ALL_ applicable law. For US
citizens for example patent law comes to mind as being quite a burden.
I still need to see somebody who can give a sensible example of where
their legal rights diminish upto a point where frivolous law suits are
suddenly possible thanks to the TPVP.
On 1 April 2010 10:54, Rob Nelson <nexisentertainment at gmail.com> wrote:
> How many times must it be said?
> The problem isn't that there's people interpreting it. The problem is
> that there's NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION.
> Section 7a:
>> If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all features,
> functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers that you develop
> or distribute.
> I honestly am not going to believe a Linden who's handwaving what is an
> OBVIOUS and CLEAR statement simply because we're not lawyers. I mean,
> honestly. What is a lawyer going to say? "Oh, by that, they actually
> mean you are NOT responsible"? I HIGHLY doubt that.
More information about the opensource-dev