im.py: a python communications tool

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:02:14 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>>> It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's
>>> no expectation that you're getting anything at all!
>>
>> Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
>> she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives
>> you a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of
>> promise. If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather
>> than a gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.
> 
> But you see, there's the critical difference.  First of all you're
> making two errors in your comparison.  Firstly, a *person* is saying
> that she's going to *do something for you*.  She's making a promise. If
> I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it!  That's #1 (!)

And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT 
DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you 
have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does.

If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for 
people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed 
yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to 
take responsibility for their carelessness? Don't you think that it is 
pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for 
the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS-
infected needle!"

The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick 
will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say 
it does. If it doesn't, and people are harmed by that, then you ought to 
live up to your responsibility. Or, *you warn them ahead of time* that 
you take no responsibility, with an explicit warranty disclaimer.


  WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles.
  Eat at your own risk!


> Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.

The fact that she's a public figure is irrelevant.


[...]
>> And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
>> and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
>> standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose
>> it was designed.
> 
> Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
> argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car
> company could be sued.   You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one
> who designed it.

That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that 
your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company 
that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it 
is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the 
manufacturer.

Other places might decide that Oprah's company had no duty of care to 
ensure that the car was in a fit state, and responsibility was entirely 
on the car manufacturer. Some places might reason that you can sue both, 
and it is up to the court to decide what percentage of responsibility 
each party must take. Which case it is will depend on the laws of 
whichever place has legal jurisdiction.



-- 
Steven