[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: openssl



* Theo de Raadt [2002-09-26 01:32]:
> > > > > It says "If you agree not to sue us, we'll agree not
> > > > > to sue you."  Covenant:  http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c323.htm
> > > > > How does that restrict your freedom?
> > > > 
> > > > It blocks my right to sue them.
> > > 
> > > Can this agreement be made according to the american law?
> > 
> > Sure. It's called a contract.
> > 
> > (Details vary by jurisdiction, however. Some states consider certain
> > forms of stupid contracts to be inherently deceptive, so that such
> > contracts can be made, but can't be enforced in those states.)
> > 
> > > How stupid.
> > 
> > The freedom to make stupid contracts is an essential freedom. 
> > 
> > The freedom to avoid stupid contracts is another essential freedom, and
> > a much better freedom to exercise, IMO.
> 
> Very well spoken.

Agreed. Still what confuses me is the fact that it's in americal law
system possible to agree in a contract that neither part should be able
to sue the other part. To sue the other part is also an essential
freedom that ensures that contracts are followed. Maybe the situation is
a little bit different when the contract is about software and other
immaterial "things". (sorry if the English is bad)

I'm probably going to ask somebody at the faculty about the
agree-not-to-sue-the-other-part thing. I study law (a law student and a
sysadmin?) and I wonder how this problem would be solved in Norway.

> > Here's another case where governments must either recognize both
> > freedoms or limit them both.
> > 
> > But openBSD is not a government, even if it represents a community. You
> > might say that one of the contracts of this community is to avoid
> > encouraging each other to make stupid contracts.
> 
> My goal is to discourage OpenSSL, by disparaging them for being so naive..
> er, did I really just avoid using the word stupid?

Do they follow this discussion? :)

-- 
Kirill



Visit your host, monkey.org