Linux guru argues against security liability
,----[ Quote ]
| Alan Cox, one of the leading Linux kernel developers, has told a House of
| Lords hearing that neither open- nor closed-source developers should be
| liable for the security of the code they write.
`----
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39285532,00.htm?r=1
Related:
=== Begin quote ==
"The cost of these steps could reduce our operating margins. Despite
these efforts, actual or perceived security vulnerabilities in our
products could lead some customers to seek to return products, to reduce
or delay future purchases, or to use competing products. Customers may
also increase their expenditures on protecting their existing computer
systems from attack, which could delay adoption of new technologies. Any
of these actions by customers could adversely affect our revenue. In
addition, actual or perceived vulnerabilities may lead to claims against
us. While our license agreements typically contain provisions that
eliminate or limit our exposure to such liability, there is no assurance
these provisions will be held effective under applicable laws and
judicial decisions."
Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally responsible
for selling software that is insecure.
== End quote ==
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061122235224396
Rights management system patented (by Alan Cox)
,----[ Quote ]
| A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer
| program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable
| terms. The system monitors usage of the computer program for usage
| and activities that are not in compliance with the license or
| other use terms.
`----
http://www.freshpatents.com/Alan-Cox-Swansea-invdirc.php
|
|
