In your email to me, Dave Cinege, you wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:57:29 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul Serice writes:
> >> > Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz (from
> >> > Berkeley) to participate in a meeting for Debian," and
I wrote:
> I was arguing that there is no contract and therefore no duty.
> I don't know of any case law on that, though.
Bruce writes:
> There is at least an implicit contract when we give them access to our
> internal systems to perform work for us. We could make it explicit.
I meant the end us
> Show me the risk of a free venture. Show me the business orginazation, before
> Debian Inc. was formed. Show me the money! There was none before, and that was
> why what you just quoted would never have applied to the Debian maintainers.
> They had no collective assests!
Unfortunately, their pr
> BTW, when's the last time you sat down and read some statues from
> your state? (Or all 50 as you claim?)
The last time I read the long-arm statute for my state was about 3
weeks ago. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about personal
jurisdiction will tell you that all 50 states have long-
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:57:29 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Paul Serice writes:
>> > Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz (from
>> > Berkeley) to participate in a meeting for Debian," and on the way
>> > he causes an accident. Before incorporation, n
On Fri, 22 Aug 97 20:48 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> It may not. An employee is working under the supervision of the
>> corporation: he's "just following orders". The corporation is presumed to
>> be checking his work, so if his screwups get out it is held liable. Can you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Paul Serice writes:
> > Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz (from
> > Berkeley) to participate in a meeting for Debian," and on the way
> > he causes an accident. Before incorporation, no one knew how far
> > the liability tail extended.
>
> Are
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It may not. An employee is working under the supervision of the
> corporation: he's "just following orders". The corporation is presumed to
> be checking his work, so if his screwups get out it is held liable. Can you
> argue that the maintainers are acting under your co
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:15:52 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
>Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz (from
>Berkeley) to participate in a meeting for Debian," and on the way he
>causes an accident. Before incorporation, no one knew how far the
>liability tail extended. (For example,
Paul Serice writes:
> Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz (from Berkeley)
> to participate in a meeting for Debian," and on the way he causes an
> accident. Before incorporation, no one knew how far the liability tail
> extended.
Are you an attorney? I'm not. I find it hard
At 10:15 AM 8/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I don't really think there is much risk, though. Where's the duty?
>>
>> Has there ever actually been a negligence suit over free software?
>>
>
>This is a good question. I would imagine the answer is no, but .
I haven't had
Bruce Perens writes:
> We don't need to purchase liability insurance as long as the
> corporation's total assets are small.
The lack of assets or insurance gives plaintiffs an incentive to try to
reach through to the individuals.
> Since the corporation has the liability, ...
It may not. An emp
bruce wrote,
> From: Rick Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > However, were an individual programmer to incure liability (the only
> > way I can think of off hand is by deliberately caused harm, such as
> > sneaking in a disk eraser), the corporation won't protect that
> > individual.
> We would like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't really think there is much risk, though. Where's the duty?
>
> Has there ever actually been a negligence suit over free software?
>
This is a good question. I would imagine the answer is no, but . . .
Suppose, Bruce is "going to drive tomorrow to Santa Cruz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Is every maintainer an employee or agent of SPI, then? Or is SPI going to
> purchase liability insurance and name all the maintainers as beneficiaries?
They act as agents of SPI in a restricted way, yes. We grant them
access to our internal system to perform volunteer wo
On 21 Aug 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bruce writes:
> > However there are negligence scenarios, for example a maintainer who
> > accepts a patch without realizing that it contains a trojan-horse
> > program. I want to shield our developers from individual liability in
> > that sort of case.
>
Bruce writes:
> However there are negligence scenarios, for example a maintainer who
> accepts a patch without realizing that it contains a trojan-horse
> program. I want to shield our developers from individual liability in
> that sort of case.
Is every maintainer an employee or agent of SPI, the
On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Rick Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > However, were an individual programmer to incure liability (the only
> > way I can think of off hand is by deliberately caused harm, such as
> > sneaking in a disk eraser), the corporation won't protect that
> >
From: Rick Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, were an individual programmer to incure liability (the only
> way I can think of off hand is by deliberately caused harm, such as
> sneaking in a disk eraser), the corporation won't protect that
> individual.
We would likely pursue criminal charges
19 matches
Mail list logo
