Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #42865 > unrolled thread

im.py: a python communications tool

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 17:16 -0700
    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 17:52 -0700
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 08:35 -0700
    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-05 21:07 -0400
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 18:13 -0700
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 20:26 -0500
        Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 07:54 -0700
        Re: im.py: a python communications tool garabik-news-2005-05@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk - 2013-04-07 08:59 +0000
          Re: im.py: a python communications tool jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com - 2013-04-07 14:47 -0700
            Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 22:36 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 13:00 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 03:48 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:16 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-08 22:05 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 20:37 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 02:04 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 23:20 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 06:47 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 23:42 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 02:42 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:14 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 00:20 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 07:38 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:02 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 09:08 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:29 -0700
                        Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 13:05 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-12 12:57 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-04-12 20:05 +0000
                      RE: im.py: a python communications tool "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2013-04-12 21:48 +0000
                  RE: im.py: a python communications tool "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2013-04-12 19:46 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:21 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 00:39 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 08:31 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:58 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-04-09 14:41 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 09:36 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 19:40 +1000
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 13:03 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 23:23 +1000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 19:48 +1000
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 04:09 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:46 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-04-09 14:30 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:15 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 08:45 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:00 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 05:18 -0400
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:32 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-09 17:10 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#43127

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the case of free (libre) open source
> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
> promises anyone *anything*.

If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43128

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the case of free (libre) open source
>> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
>> promises anyone *anything*.
>
> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.

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!   Where does
everyone come up with these bullshit ideas?  And them let them stand
as de facto law?

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43130

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:20:27 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen
>> <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the case of free (libre) open source software, such a case would
>>> have no merit, because such software never promises anyone *anything*.
>>
>> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
>> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
>> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.
> 
> 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. 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/newsmakers/oprah_car_tax/index.htm

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.


> Where does everyone
> come up with these bullshit ideas?

I've been wondering exactly the same thing... 



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43135

>> 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
(!)

Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.
Legally, the issue is not so much that she's a public figure, but that
she's making a *published* claim.  It could be Joe Blow posting a
notice around town making the claim.   Now such claims don't have much
legal standing, because a lawyer could argue that Joe Blow is a nut
job and such offers can't be trusted.  If you want grounds for breach
of a promise you better get it in writing and counter-signed.

> 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.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43146

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43148

> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43163

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 02:29:43 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care"

That explains a lot.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43479

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Prasad, Ramit
<ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
> Mark Janssen wrote:
>> 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
>> (!)
>
> Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
> publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility
> of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is
> supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer.

It is akin to publishing it.  The law has not made a good distinction
about responsibility in this area.  But I'm telling you that unless
money is exchanged THERE IS NO AGREEMENT MADE, implicit or otherwise.
If there is no agreement, then another party can't blame you for
something you didn't promise.  Otherwise, I can blame you for
insulting my fashion sense.

> On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
> and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you
> still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees?

If someone brings you to court and fails to make their case, they've
inconvenienced everyone.  The fair thing would be for the court to
require them to pay for your fees.

>And
> getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.

Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system.  Judges can
be quite reasonable.  They don't want more time taken for bullshit
cases and would much prefer for things to be settled (that is what
their duty is -- to settle matters, not to make lawyers wealthy).

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43480

On 2013-04-12, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system.
> Judges can be quite reasonable.  They don't want more time
> taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be
> settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not
> to make lawyers wealthy).

Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43488

Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2013-04-12, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Possibily, but don't accept this view of the legal system.
> > Judges can be quite reasonable.  They don't want more time
> > taken for bullshit cases and would much prefer for things to be
> > settled (that is what their duty is -- to settle matters, not
> > to make lawyers wealthy).
> 
> Wishful thinking is the wrong way to approach any legal matter.
> 

He is not completely wishful (for USA). 
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/11/u-s-judge-expresses-frustration-at-apples-and-googles-use-of-litigation-as-business-strategy/

Of course, not sure if the frustration will actually lead to
an action or is just idle talk.


~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43481

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
> (!)

Theoretically isn't putting a piece of software "online" akin to
publishing it? Following that logic, then there is the possibility 
of arguing an implicit promise that the software does what it is 
supposed to. Any bugs would be the responsibility of the developer. 

On a separate note, even if the judgment supports your view
and the developer is never responsible for damages, will you
still not be responsible for any court/lawyer fees? And
getting those fees paid by suitor will likely be another court case.


~Ramit


This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43129

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the case of free (libre) open source
>>> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
>>> promises anyone *anything*.
>>
>> If that is the case, it's because the software license explicitly says
>> so - which is the reason for all those uppercase words in those
>> licenses. Which brings us right back to where we started.
>
> 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!   Where does
> everyone come up with these bullshit ideas?  And them let them stand
> as de facto law?

Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
it to protect me.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43132

> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
> it to protect me.

I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs.  If I hand you
a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?  If no
money changed hands?  I don't have to cite anything!  This is argument
of the absurd and should be inadmissible.

Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43138

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:39:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>> it to protect me.
> 
> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs.  If I hand you a
> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?

Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there 
is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will 
depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was 
disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

Is there an implied promise that the rose I gave you will have a scent? I 
don't think so, there are many roses that don't have a scent.

There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe. If I lace 
the rose with a toxic chemical, and you get sick after handling it, you 
probably could sue me even if the rose was a free gift.

And so you should -- if I am stupid, careless or malicious enough to hand 
out toxic products that cause harm, I ought to take responsibility for my 
actions. If I won't take responsibility, then the law enforcement and 
legal systems ought to force me to take responsibility.


> If no money
> changed hands?  I don't have to cite anything!  This is argument of the
> absurd and should be inadmissible.

I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality. In 
reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their 
purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue. 
For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer, 
you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious 
plaintiffs.

Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven, 
effective legal licence?



> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming 
thoughts into your head.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43144

>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>>> it to protect me.
>>
>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs.  If I hand you a
>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?
>
> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose?  Let's see....

> There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe.

> I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality.

Okay.

> In
> reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
> purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.

To the extent that Free Software isn't sold, it's not a product.  To
the extent that the software is taken at the effort of the user,
rather than *given* by the programmer, there is no purpose -- neither
explicitly or *implicitly* implied.  Just like if I were to pick off a
teddybear on a table sitting on a curb with a sign that says "free".
Ask yourself, tin-foil-hatless man, why don't you suggest a sign that
says "take at your own risk, no warranty implied"?  Because you don't
want to make a society that is that stupid about things, that's why.
Now stop pandering to the bar association.

You've accepted the market mentality and applied it to our world of
free and open source software.  It's supposed to be about community
and having fun.

> For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
> you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
> plaintiffs.

That might be, but if you include such a wily lawyer could suggest
that by the very act of including a legal disclaimer you're moved
yourself into a contract negotiation and are expected to be more
strict in your terms.

> Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
> effective legal licence?

I told you above.  I don't want a world like you're suggesting where
people can't just say "you can do what you want with this software",
but should be lawyers instead.

>> Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.
>
> You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
> thoughts into your head.

I know.  It got you didn't it.  But you'll note that Latin is also
used as a language of the court.  If you want tin foil hats, though,
you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar?  All seeing eye?  It's you who
have the burden of explanation brother, because it doesn't make any
sense without going to outer space.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43179

On 2013-04-09, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
>>>> didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
>>>> true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
>>>> it to protect me.
>>>
>>> I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs.  If I hand you a
>>> rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?
>>
>> Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
>> is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
>> depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
>> disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.
>
> What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose?  Let's see....

[In the US]

 1) You've got to show that the prick was harmful enough to you that
    it merits legal remedy.

 2) You've got to show that you had a reasonable expectation that
    roses didn't have thorns.

 3) You've got to show that whoever gave you the rose should have
    forseen that would be harmed.

 4) For extra bonus points, you try to show that whoever gave you the
    rose knew you would be harmed or indended to harm you.

[In some areas of civil law, you can cash in your bonus points from
step four for treble damages!]

Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
legal system works?

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! UH-OH!!  I put on
                                  at               "GREAT HEAD-ON TRAIN
                              gmail.com            COLLISIONS of the 50's"
                                                   by mistake!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43211

> Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
> legal system works?

Gads.  I'm trying to show you how the legal system *doesn't* work.
All your points may be valid under court history, but that history is
tainted.  It doesn't mean the system is working, only that cases have
been decided.  And the court should not be ruling on issues of such
accidents because guilt cannot established ("accidents" where there
was no intention of harm, nor tacit agreement made between any
parties)  like a person giving a rose to their neighbor in an act of
good will.  Such events should use mediators, not judges because their
is no *law* to be decided.  The judges, or course, can act as
mediators, but the court system seems bogged down enough already.

I mean really, a good-will act?  The Good Samaritan rules already
establish that you can't sue people for good faith acts.  Do you
really want a world where *good intentions* are penalized?  Come on --
that's why the system is broken and shame on every citizen that
continues this error in system of the People.  It doesn't matter if
people get harmed, as long as good faith is in place before and after
the event.  The "system" shouldn't get dragged in because you want to
act like a child and get your daddy to help you.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43150

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want tin foil hats, though,
> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
> already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
> Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar?  All seeing eye?

I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
all-seeing-eye.

ChrisA
(And yeah, a mob of animals. You'll either know or not know why it's a mob.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43162

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:40:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If you want tin foil hats, though,
>> you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you already
>> have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted. Egyptian
>> pyramids on the U.S. dollar?  All seeing eye?
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
> all-seeing-eye.

It must be counterfeit!

Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43165

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:40:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
>> animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
>> all-seeing-eye.
>
> It must be counterfeit!
>
> Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely.

Ahh, you studied counterfeit-recognition under the tutelage of Dennis
Bloodnok, I see.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web