[opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Marine Kelley]

Well sure, if I stated that I agree to be responsible for whatever  
defect, past present and future, the SL viewer may introduce, but I'm  
not crazy, and I doubt anybody else would be either. This is called an  
abusive clause and that does not stand in court. Therefore, I do not  
see the "no warranty" clause go away, nor us be expected to remove it  
ourselves. And therefore I do not see us being sued by users for  
whatever bug they may encounter.

But I might be over-optimistic, as usual.

On 30 mars 2010, at 10:17, Gareth Nelson <gareth at garethnelson.com>  
wrote:

>> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be  
>> liable
>> when first hand code is not.
>
> Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten
> rather than rely on it not standing up in court