Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

nemo_outis wrote:

> Carsten Krueger <use.net.cakruege@spameater.org> wrote in
> news:1o25t3fbazblo$.dlg@cakruege.my-fqdn.de:
>
>> Am 26 Nov 2005 19:37:26 GMT schrieb nemo_outis:
>>
>>> You really look gift horses VERY deep in the mouth, don't you?
>>
>> If it's crypto software, you as the author has a very big
>> responsibility. And the simplist thing is to say: we have a problem. Not
>> happend -> bad.
>>
>>>PS I look forward to frequenting the forum to discuss Truecrypt that
>>>YOU, with your higher sense of public responsibility, will undoubtedly
>>>soon put up.
>>
>> If their is a real problem, it's easy to take http://www.ezboard.com/ or
>> something like this.
>>
>> greetings
>> Carsten
>
>
> You really are a consummate dunce, aren't you?
>
> You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a free
> program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all to you, a
> whining parasite!

The price one charges for a product and their liability and responsibility
for that product are NOT synonymous nemo. Sorry. If it doesn't work as
advertised they're liable for any damages it might cause, and that has
nothing at all to do with how much money they make off it.

In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
no matter what they're charging for the product.

This is the cross ALL software authors must bear. If you don't want to
play the game, stay home. :)

> And, no, the best thing is *not* to say "we have a problem," the best
> thing is to *fix* the problem. And that is exactly what the authors did!
> Quickly too!

I agree. But I also see the fact that they had no choice but to address
the problem in a timely manner. They did exactly what they had to do.
Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know anything at all bout the forums thing.

> First, you bitched that the forums were down and now, when someone
> sarcastically puts the boots to you, you are dismissive that it is a "real
> problem." Hell, you didn't even realize I was skewering you. What a
> buffoon!
>
> Regards,

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
news:77c6b506a119c1428ef1b0a3d8a54f55@pseudo.borke d.net:

....
>> You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a
>> free program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all
>> to you, a whining parasite!
>
> The price one charges for a product and their liability and
> responsibility for that product are NOT synonymous nemo. Sorry. If it
> doesn't work as advertised they're liable for any damages it might
> cause, and that has nothing at all to do with how much money they make
> off it.
>
> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
> secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
> and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
> negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
>
> This is the cross ALL software authors must bear. If you don't want to
> play the game, stay home. :)
>


Nope, not so. If you're interested in legal folderol you might wish to
read the Truecrypt Licence, and, more particularly, Section IV, Disclaimer
of Warranties and Liabilities.

As a more practical matter, the authors are unknown, and this would make
pursuing a claim more than a little difficult. (I speculate that they're
also likely impecunious, too :-)

As for maintaining that the authors of a freeware program have a duty to
update it - that is so preposterous as not to deserve further comment.

Caveat emptor. And all the more so when the "emptor" has paid nothing. No,
I stand by my statement: no duty and no responsibility. And I say so, not
just regarding reasonable jurisdictions, but even for the litigious lawyer-
infested USA.

Regards,

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
>
> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
> data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
> DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
> no matter what they're charging for the product.
>

What law school graduated YOU?

The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty of
fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement that
had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
computers.

God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
nonsense like you just did.

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
>
> Caveat emptor. And all the more so when the "emptor" has paid nothing.
> No,

Well said.

Perhaps the critic could sue to get back what he paid for it . . . :-)

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
>> data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
>> DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
>> no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>
>
> What law school graduated YOU?
>
> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty of
> fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement that
> had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
> computers.
>
> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
> nonsense like you just did.

You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

Ari Silverstein <abcarisilversteinn@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in
news:w2jrbtr6a6z9.v6vbonjdkytp.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
>
>>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
>>> secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
>>> and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
>>> negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>>
>>
>> What law school graduated YOU?
>>
>> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no
>> warranty of fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the
>> license agreement that had to be accepted before the software would
>> install itself on the users' computers.
>>
>> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
>> nonsense like you just did.
>
> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.


Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.

Regards,

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
>
> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
> wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
> remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such cases,
Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.

> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
> cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
> software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.
>
> Regards,

It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who have
delusional senses of actual court actions.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

Ari Silverstein <abcarisilversteinn@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in
news:jud6w7mfigbx.1e5ah3ert6mks.dlg@40tude.net:

> On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
>>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
>>
>> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff.
>> Except for wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that
>> would have the remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.
>
> Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such
> cases, Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.
>
>> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite
>> some cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to
>> update free software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for
>> Burkina Faso.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who
> have delusional senses of actual court actions.


Oh, to the contrary, Ari, I'm most eager to learn. Public humiliation is a
small price to pay to improve my understanding and correct my errors - I'm
more than willing to pay that price.

So since you boast above that you have "won and lost" such cases, please be
so good as to cite them. Don't let a misplaced sense of compassion
dissuade you - crush me with the full specific details. After all, with
your first-hand knowledge and the cases being a matter of public record,
you should have no problems doing so, right?

Put up or shut up, Ari - cite the cases!

Regards,

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

"Ari Silverstein" <abcarisilversteinn@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in message
news:w2jrbtr6a6z9.v6vbonjdkytp.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
>
>>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
>>> secures
>>> data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
>>> DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent.
>>> Again,
>>> no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>>
>>
>> What law school graduated YOU?
>>
>> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty
>> of
>> fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement
>> that
>> had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
>> computers.
>>
>> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
>> nonsense like you just did.
>
> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
> --
> Drop the alphabet for email


Have YOU ever practiced in any "USA Federal Court?" Or are you another one
of those "Ten-Cent-Lawyers?"

Re: Truecrypt 4.1
 

"Ari Silverstein" <abcarisilversteinn@yahoo.comxyz> wrote in message
news:jud6w7mfigbx.1e5ah3ert6mks.dlg@40tude.net...
> On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
>>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
>>
>> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except
>> for
>> wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
>> remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.
>
> Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such cases,
> Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.
>
>> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
>> cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
>> software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who have
> delusional senses of actual court actions.
> --
> Drop the alphabet for email

I asked Ed Becker about this yesterday and he said it'll be a cold day in
hell before anyone would get a cent out of the developers of TrueCrypt. Ed
is my neighbor.