Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:11:10 -0700 From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Browser ? Message-ID: <jmacjmrbsh.cjm@mail.opusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a0508121340d580d69@mail.gmail.com> (Nikolas Britton's message of "Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:40:16 -0500") References: <dc6701ba050811121459d5489e@mail.gmail.com> <20050811191817.GA22328@beatrix.daedalusnetworks.priv> <b7052e1e05081203103c743fa@mail.gmail.com> <20050812110041.GA28053@beatrix.daedalusnetworks.priv> <ef10de9a05081204472ef2fe8b@mail.gmail.com> <ybirybgjwi.ryb@mail.opusnet.com> <ef10de9a0508121340d580d69@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> writes: > On 8/12/05, Gary W. Swearingen <garys@opusnet.com> wrote: >> Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Like what? >> >> Like the indemnification clause in >> http://mail.google.com/mail/help/terms_of_use.html >> >> One can limit their exposure to such risks by accessing such services >> as read-only services, except for their normal SMTP services which, >> AFAIK, are covered only by implied licenses with no indemnification. >> I hope. > > I'm sure you'd find that in any type of web service. In any type, probably, but not in every service; I've found several e-mail service providers (two free) without indemnification clauses. Unfortunately, I can't find a single domain name supplier, except there are probably some outside the United States of Attorneys. > Say if I > disclosed, under an NDA, the code that SCO claims was stolen and put > into Linux using Google's Gmail service and then SCO turns around and > sues google for posting the message, because they have deeper pockets > then I. Google has nothing to do with this other then being the > intermedium, I'm the one that did the damage. And let's also say that you were 100% innocent. Google can still have you pay for the most expensive legal firm they could find to take depositions, argue about source code in hearings and court, etc, before SCO lost their case. Now I wouldn't care whether Google or you accepted the risk, except that because there are so many people willing to assume companies' risks of doing business, it's becoming more-and-more difficult for us who aren't willing, to find companies who include such risks into their other costs of doing business, thus providing a form of insurance for the public. My insurance guy, BTW, says there is no personal insurance to cover such indemnification. Your home serves as that insurance. > It's standard corporate risk management. It's becoming that. But a few years ago most sites didn't even have contracts but they're getting more common and much longer. (Pay Pal had the worst one I've seen; a huge thing with links to several more to be included by reference.) But note that many sites, including www.google.com, still don't have indemnification clauses.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?jmacjmrbsh.cjm>