From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 20:54:27 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA7916A41C for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:54:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jd@philemon.async.caltech.edu) Received: from philemon.caltech.edu (philemon.async.caltech.edu [131.215.39.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8016F43D48 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:54:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jd@philemon.async.caltech.edu) Received: from philemon.caltech.edu (localhost.caltech.edu [127.0.0.1]) by philemon.caltech.edu (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j5HKsF3v049745; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jd@philemon.async.caltech.edu) Received: (from jd@localhost) by philemon.caltech.edu (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) id j5HKsFg7049744; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:54:15 -0700 From: Paul Allen To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050617205415.GT18614@philemon.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:57:40 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: groff alternative? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:54:27 -0000 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote: > You should know that being involved in a lawsuit generally has nothing to do > with the actual merits of the situation, it takes nothing more than one party > being unreasonable and looking for anything they can think of to make claims. > For someone in the EU-- or Australia, or a lot of places, apparently-- that > could be something as simple as the "DISCLAIMER" section of the BSD license, > since those jurisdictions do not permit liability to be completely disclaimed. I beg your pardon? I highly doubt that there is a jurisdiction on the planet that supports the principle of one-sided contracts. The DISCLAIMER gains its power precisely because you did not pay for the work being disclaimed and you voluntarily made use of that work. This is distinguished say from the necessity of good-samaratian laws which apply when people give aid without compensation to individuals who are not in a state in which they may consent. Please provide case citations with such speculation in the future. A good engineer knows that many things can go wrong, but he worries only about those things he feels are likely. -Paul