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

[Christofer C. Bell]

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.

-- 
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20110519/0cf4c8b6/attachment.html>