im.py: a python communications tool

[Mark Janssen]

> 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.

No, there is no requirement for a disclaimer.  In the US, what is not
explicitly restricted by the law is withheld by the citizen.  I don't
have to give a disclaimer if my intentions are in good faith.

And further, I'm not saying that it's fit for a purpose in some
trade-like agreement.  So I'm not in possible breach of any agreement
whatsoever.

> 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?

If I go to a freebiebox placed outside a restaurant with such, no, I'm
taking responsibility.  "Caveat emptor" as they say and here's there's
no buyer.
If I go to a table and there are free breadstix on the table and start
eating them without intentions to pay, then I'm the shithole.
If I get infected from some food at a restaurant which I paid for,
then each side will have to argue their case.  The court may find
negligence on the side of the restaurant, or it may not.

> 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!"

Hey, you know it's expected that if someone gets hurt from something
you provided, but you didnt' intend it on them and didn't make any
money off of them, that you still say you're sorry.  Each person in a
government of the people is expected to do their fair part in using
commonsense.  The courts can't deal with every little squabble.

> 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.

No to the latter.  As for the former, if I'm at a restaurant I'm
entering a business relationship.  The cost of the  breadsticks are
already bundled in the other food you are *expected* to order.

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

Here again your letting the Novus Ordo "market mentality" dominate
your thinking when it should be on about person-to-person simple
interactions.  Unless of course, you've allowed corporations to be
people, and your in a corporate restaurant, please no.

>> 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.

Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care", because
you're not a child being taken care of and Oprah is not someone acting
"in loco parentis".   The 14th(?) amendment give equal treatment under
the law, there's no duty of care unless you can argue that it's
expected of your adult ass getting on TV.

MarkJ