im.py: a python communications tool

[Mark Janssen]

>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>>> it to protect me.
>>
>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs.  If I hand you a
>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?
>
> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose?  Let's see....

> There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe.

> I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality.

Okay.

> In
> reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
> purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.

To the extent that Free Software isn't sold, it's not a product.  To
the extent that the software is taken at the effort of the user,
rather than *given* by the programmer, there is no purpose -- neither
explicitly or *implicitly* implied.  Just like if I were to pick off a
teddybear on a table sitting on a curb with a sign that says "free".
Ask yourself, tin-foil-hatless man, why don't you suggest a sign that
says "take at your own risk, no warranty implied"?  Because you don't
want to make a society that is that stupid about things, that's why.
Now stop pandering to the bar association.

You've accepted the market mentality and applied it to our world of
free and open source software.  It's supposed to be about community
and having fun.

> For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
> you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
> plaintiffs.

That might be, but if you include such a wily lawyer could suggest
that by the very act of including a legal disclaimer you're moved
yourself into a contract negotiation and are expected to be more
strict in your terms.

> Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
> effective legal licence?

I told you above.  I don't want a world like you're suggesting where
people can't just say "you can do what you want with this software",
but should be lawyers instead.

>> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.
>
> You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
> thoughts into your head.

I know.  It got you didn't it.  But you'll note that Latin is also
used as a language of the court.  If you want tin foil hats, though,
you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar?  All seeing eye?  It's you who
have the burden of explanation brother, because it doesn't make any
sense without going to outer space.

Mark