im.py: a python communications tool

[Dave Angel]

On 04/09/2013 02:20 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.  By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
> to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
> own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.

I like to be pessimistic when signing the documents that might ruin my 
own future.  In my last job, I told the company lawyers I would not 
accept the NDA as they supplied it, and they claimed I was the first one 
to successfully force a new version.  As HR put it, most people don't 
even read it, they figure it's a requirement to work.

>
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
> the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
> land.  People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
> continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
> propagated earlier.  We're not victims here.  The story of a burglar
> suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
> somewhere in the judicial system.  It should not be considered case
> history or "de facto" law and left at that.
>
>>>    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.
>
> (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
> the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer.  Like the sheriff
> says:  "I make the law around here!"  lol.
>

I can't really argue your points, and once a challenge is made, I'm 
thoroughly in agreement.  But it's much easier to keep things clear from 
the beginning, and I've been assuming our job here was to advise the OP 
on whether his plan for a license agreement is good.   Years ago I 
managed to get our company lawyers to approve the use of "free" software 
for internal use, but getting the custom license agreement past them was 
like pulling teeth.


-- 
DaveA