On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ciaran Farrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cfarrell@suse.de">cfarrell@suse.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="font-family:'Monospace';font-size:12pt;font-weight:400;font-style:normal"><div class="im">
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;text-indent:0px">On Thursday 19 May 2011 17:17:56 Paul W. Frields wrote:</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;text-indent:0px">> The Fedora distribution itself is wrapped with GPLv2, which includes a</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;text-indent:0px">> "no warranty" statement. To what extent does that not apply?</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;text-indent:0px"><br></p>
</div><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;text-indent:0px">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.</p>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div> </div></div>-- <br>Chris<br><br><br><br>