Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Winged wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
>>>news: :
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> ROTFL!
>>
>> And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all"
>> argument is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
>> Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
>> impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and
>> how it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
>> looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
>>
>> No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit
>> sooner.
>>
> Actually this Act applies to commercial transactions or transactions where
> trade occurs. Since the software was free, no trade occurs so no
> provision of this act applies...see section 302.

Oh for crying out LOUD!

There's several sections in the act that SPECIFICALLY STATE that free
software isn't any more immune to liability than stuff that's charged for.
READ the damned thing willya already!


>
> I concur with Nemo that in my last 25 years of exp I fail to recollect any
> case where any freeware vendor had been held liable in any court except
> for virus and malware writers.
>
> This act which I had been blissfully ignorant of, basically takes all
> rights that a consumer might have and gives them to the vendor. It is
> evil in its definition and does not expand consumer rights and is not a
> consumers friend.
> This proposed act does not appear to have passed in tact by any state
> legislature I could find in spite of high level lobby by industry in many
> states. Perhaps I did not look far enough, but I did not find where this
> proposed act was ratified in any state. I did see where they were trying
> to sneak it in for federal consideration, but it is a snake oil citation
> that does not apply. But the act itself was interesting reading.
>
> If I were a software writer selling software...I would want this law as it
> expands my protections.
>
> Must be that crack thing using this as a citation.
>
> Winged

Anonymous