>> In my opinion, the GNU Project and the developers of GCC would be well >> advised to get legal advice on their responsibilities and liabilities >> in this matter. > >Err, no, sadly: > >http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html > > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OpenSSL PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY > > * EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE > > * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > > * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OpenSSL PROJECT OR > > * ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, > > * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT > > * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; > > * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) > > * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, > > * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) > > * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED > > * OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > > >Leave the lawyering to the wretched slime who passed the bar.
It is far from settled to what extent you can disclaim liability in a purported license. There isn't much case law at all for open source software, where there's generally no exchange of consideration so it is highly debatable whether a contract exists, and none I'm aware of on liability, only on copyright. As Arnold said, find a lawyer who understands this stuff, if such a lawyer exists. R's, John _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
