full-disclosure - GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: dufresne at winternet.com (Ron DuFresne)
Subject: GOOD: A legal fix for software flaws? 

Let's face it with this whole argument.  The laws could be written to
protect mom& pop's, or limit liability there to SW cost, exepmt GPL'ed SW,
and only target for real bucks the big vendors.  But,, as has been seen,
M$ alone can stand up to and get through the courts pretty much unscathed,
even if facing a few million dollars a day penalties during the process.
This without even having to lobby and facing the feds and states in the
courts directly.  so, the only real rememdy is for individuals and  corps
to hit M$ and the major  vendors that are problem clindren directly in the
pocketbooks.  For course, such a boycott will never get pulled off, far to
many management types have their whole careers tied into their dependence
upon unsanitary toys and trinkets shipped by the major problem children of
the industry.

Thanks,

Ron DuFresne

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:19:05 -0300, Fabio Gomes de Souza <fabio@....com.br>  said:
> > This is an entire crap. Everyone knows that a contract cannot override
> > the law. If the law tells that the manufacturer of a product should be
> > liable for its product's failures, then the manufacturer will be,
> > regardless of any stupid contract the manufacturer and the consumer
> > sign. I cannot, for example, sign a contract which gives me the right to
> > kill you, because the contract is overriding the law.
>
> There's just one little problem with your logic:
>
> Unless the law specifically prohibits disclaimer of liability, there's nothing
> illegal about a clause that does so.  And in the best "be careful what you wish
> for, as you may get it", you might want to go back and re-read clause 11 and 12
> of the GPL, Version 2, and ask yourself if *ANY* GPL'ed software would get
> released if that clause was illegal.  If it was in fact illegal to disclaim
> liability, clause 7 would totally prohibit you from distributing it *AT ALL*.
>
> Then there's the issue of mom-n-pop software shops and small consulting
> firms - they can't hide behind a "we're giving it away for free" clause in the
> hypothetical law, but they'd be insane to stay in business without software
> liability insurance.   How many insurance companies are offering *THAT*
> at rates a 2-5 person consulting firm can afford?
>
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
	***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.