3 ms·
oh sure the criminal who put the backdoor in place, no-one's arguing his/her liability. But the point that I was referring to is any suggestion that the repo.
by raesene9 8y ago
oh sure the criminal who put the backdoor in place, no-one's arguing his/her liability.
But the point that I was referring to is any suggestion that the repo. owner who handed it over could bear any liability for doing so, I'd suggest that's not probable/practicable.
- jakelazaroff 8y agoI don't see how the text of the MIT license can be construed to indemnify a negligent developer but not a malicious one.
- raesene9 8y agoWell, let me put it to you this way. If a malware author installs a piece of software on your machine and it steals bitcoins from your machine, do you think they'd be able to argue to a judge that it was all OK 'cause of the software license... Put it this way, I would not suggest relying on that defence in court.
- btilly 8y agoI am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the text of the MIT license is a potential defense to a suit, it does not prevent one. As in I try sue you, you say, "But did you read the license?" I do, talk to my lawyer, and still decide to sue you. You tell the judge, "But look at the license!" And then it is up to the judge to decide whether it matters. Therefore the issue isn't the license, it is the rules of the law in question under which the author is being sued. Therefore your intent can matter. Whether a valid contract exists matters. Whether I can be expected to have read it matters. THAT THE INDEMNITY IS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS MATTERS. (I'm not making that up - see https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/18207/in-contracts-why-is-some-text-all-in-uppercase https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/18207/in-contracts-w... to see that it does matter.) The result? The indemnity in the contract can say whatever it wants and still only provides partial protection. The real rules are complicated and elsewhere in the legal system.