[Fedora-legal-list] ssh enable and firewall open for sshd connection by default after install who's legally liable?.

[Ciaran Farrell]

On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:30:46 Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell at suse.de> wrote:
> >  On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:17:56 Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > > The Fedora distribution itself is wrapped with GPLv2, which includes a
> > > 
> > > "no warranty" statement.  To what extent does that not apply?
> > 
> > It seems that he is basing his analysis on a negligence claim rather than
> > on a contract claim. The real issue would therefore be whether the
> > distributor owes a duty to the user - which in turn draws in issues of
> > foreseeability.
> 
> I hate to mention "that other company," but I think it's pretty clear that
> Microsoft has proven there's no legal threat from end users having their
> machines compromised by leaving vulnerable services open by default without
> informing that user.

I agree. I was just pointing out that the warranty based claim was not the 
only one conceivable :-)

-- 
Ciaran Farrell                   __o   
cfarrell at suse.de               _`\<,_ 
Phone: +49 (0)911 74053 262   (_)/ (_)

SUSE LINUX Products GmbH,
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer,
HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) 
Maxfeldstraße 5                         
90409 Nürnberg 
Germany

/ˈkiː.ræn/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20110519/139df5cf/attachment.html>