im.py: a python communications tool

[Dave Angel]

On 04/08/2013 11:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <davea at davea.name> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>>> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>>>>> about this, Useneters?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>>>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>>>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
>>> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>>>
>>
>> That's a common misconception.  No prior agreement is necessary to institute
>> a lawsuit, at least in the United States.  I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
>> advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
>> lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
>> be filed and prosecuted.
>
> Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
> offending me, for example.  The issue I was poorly raising is whether
> such a case would have merit.  In the case of free (libre) open source
> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
> promises anyone *anything*.

I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs 
up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing 
to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a 
warning sign.  Especially if "I" am a company.  And especially if I have 
an "attractive nuisance" around.  There are lots of implied agreements 
that have been successfully used by the opposing lawyers.

   But someone would have to make the case
> and "train" the court.  The court simply has not become appraised of
> what free, libre, open source software is.

Now you're assuming that there is such a definition, and that the court 
could be convinced to follow your interpretation.  I claim that no 
amateur should try to word his own agreement.  Either get an expert to 
help, or refer to an agreement that was prepared by such experts.  Don't 
make the assumption that because something is free, it's somehow immune 
from liability.

I expect it's safer to have no agreement at all, than to have one that 
gives away privileges without explicitly declaring or disclaiming any 
responsibilities.

>  Really, one shouldn't be
> so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
> this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
> of the People.  If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
> dies, the hospital must be

No, *should* *be*

> held responsible, because the open source
> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> Mark
>
>


-- 
DaveA