im.py: a python communications tool

[Steven D'Aprano]

It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no
expectation that you're getting anything at all!

Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you
a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise.
If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a
gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/newsmakers/oprah_car_tax/index.htm

And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it
was designed.

Where does everyone
come up with these bullshit ideas?

I've been wondering exactly the same thing...

 

[Mark Janssen]

Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money

didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
it to protect me.

I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you
a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one? If no
money changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument
of the absurd and should be inadmissible.

Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

Mark

 

[Mark Janssen]

It doesn't have to say so, if it's not charging any money -- there's no

Of course there is. If Oprah Winfrey stands up and publicly says that
she's giving you a car, FOR FREE, no strings attached, and then gives you
a piece of old bubblegum, you have standing to sue for breach of promise.
If she gives you the car, but puts it down as a *prize* rather than a
gift, then there is a big, hefty string attached: income tax.

But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise.
If I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1
(!)

Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.
Legally, the issue is not so much that she's a public figure, but that
she's making a *published* claim. It could be Joe Blow posting a
notice around town making the claim. Now such claims don't have much
legal standing, because a lawyer could argue that Joe Blow is a nut
job and such offers can't be trusted. If you want grounds for breach
of a promise you better get it in writing and counter-signed.

And if she gives you a car, only the brake lines have been disconnected
and you're seriously injured the first time you drive it, you also have
standing to sue that she gave you a car that was unfit for the purpose it
was designed.

Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the
car company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the
one who designed it.

Mark

 

[Mark Janssen]

I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.

By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race
or something. Lawyers are people, that have been trained into a
historical system of conventions. That doesn't necessarily make them
good counselors, and conversely non-lawyers can be better defenders
than "lawyers". As long as this (US) is a constitutional republic, it
is of, by and for, the people. There is legally no grounds to deprive
a citizen of a fair trial even if they don't have lawyer. The
Establishment has been intimidating people for too long.

I'm just calling it out, so my crowd (can I call it that?) doesn't
give away it's power.

Mark.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you a
rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?

Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

Is there an implied promise that the rose I gave you will have a scent? I
don't think so, there are many roses that don't have a scent.

There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe. If I lace
the rose with a toxic chemical, and you get sick after handling it, you
probably could sue me even if the rose was a free gift.

And so you should -- if I am stupid, careless or malicious enough to hand
out toxic products that cause harm, I ought to take responsibility for my
actions. If I won't take responsibility, then the law enforcement and
legal systems ought to force me to take responsibility.

If no money
changed hands? I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the
absurd and should be inadmissible.

I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality. In
reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.
For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
plaintiffs.

Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
effective legal licence?

Honestly, it's all because of this Novus Ordo Seclorum bullshit.

You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
thoughts into your head.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

By the way, here's where part of the problem stems, right here. This
notion of that you have to be a lawyer -- as if their some other race or
something.

You wouldn't go to a lawyer for advice on the best way to program. You
wouldn't go to a car mechanic to ask for the best way to set a broken
leg. You wouldn't go to a professional gardener to ask how to fight a
land war in Asia.

Sure, Mike the Personal Injury Lawyer happens to also be a hotshot
programmer with 35 years of experience in C, Fortran, Lisp, Python, Perl,
Java, Ruby, PHP, Smalltalk and Haskell. Good for him, and if you know
him, then maybe you would ask him programming questions in preference to
a lot of programmers. But that's Mike. 99% of lawyers have no idea about
the difference between a hash table and a linked list, and 30% think that
cloud computing has something to do with real clouds.

Dave might be an awesome car mechanic who can fix anything with an
engine, but that doesn't mean he knows shit about what sort of licence
and warranty disclaimer is best.

It's just damn common sense that, when faced with a legal issue, you ask
a legal expert, not a programmer or a butcher or a candle-stick maker.

http://demotivationalblog.com/demotivational/2010/03/common-sense.jpg

 

[Mark Janssen]

Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money

Are you harmed by the fact that the rose doesn't have a scent? If there
is no harm, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. What counts as harm will
depend on the jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any place where "I was
disappointed that it didn't smell nice" counts as harm.

What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see....

There is, however, an implied promise that the rose is safe.

I love a good fantasy as much as the next guy, but I live in reality.
Okay.

In
reality, people do have the expectation that products are fit for their
purpose, and if they don't, some percentage of them will attempt to sue.

To the extent that Free Software isn't sold, it's not a product. To
the extent that the software is taken at the effort of the user,
rather than *given* by the programmer, there is no purpose -- neither
explicitly or *implicitly* implied. Just like if I were to pick off a
teddybear on a table sitting on a curb with a sign that says "free".
Ask yourself, tin-foil-hatless man, why don't you suggest a sign that
says "take at your own risk, no warranty implied"? Because you don't
want to make a society that is that stupid about things, that's why.
Now stop pandering to the bar association.

You've accepted the market mentality and applied it to our world of
free and open source software. It's supposed to be about community
and having fun.

For the sake of an extra dozen or so lines giving an explicit disclaimer,
you can protect yourself from all but the most ignorant or malicious
plaintiffs.

That might be, but if you include such a wily lawyer could suggest
that by the very act of including a legal disclaimer you're moved
yourself into a contract negotiation and are expected to be more
strict in your terms.

Why would anyone rely on *wishful thinking* instead of a short, proven,
effective legal licence?

I told you above. I don't want a world like you're suggesting where
people can't just say "you can do what you want with this software",
but should be lawyers instead.

You've dropped your tinfoil hat. Watch out, the CIA will start beaming
thoughts into your head.

I know. It got you didn't it. But you'll note that Latin is also
used as a language of the court. If you want tin foil hats, though,
you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye? It's you who
have the burden of explanation brother, because it doesn't make any
sense without going to outer space.

Mark

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

But you see, there's the critical difference. First of all you're
making two errors in your comparison. Firstly, a *person* is saying
that she's going to *do something for you*. She's making a promise. If
I put a piece of software online -- you're taking it! That's #1 (!)

And by putting it online for free download, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT
DISCLAIMER, you are implying that it is fit for its purpose, and that you
have a duty of care to make sure that it does do what you say it does.

If you go into a restaurant, and they have bowls of breadsticks free for
people to eat, and you eat one, and it had a needle in it and you stabbed
yourself and got infected, don't you think that the restaurant ought to
take responsibility for their carelessness? Don't you think that it is
pretty shitty, weaselly behaviour for them to say "But you didn't pay for
the breadstick! We never promised that it wouldn't contain an AIDS-
infected needle!"

The principle is the same. There is an implied warranty that a breadstick
will not contain infected needles, and that software will do what you say
it does. If it doesn't, and people are harmed by that, then you ought to
live up to your responsibility. Or, *you warn them ahead of time* that
you take no responsibility, with an explicit warranty disclaimer.


WARNING: Breadsticks in this restaurant may contain infected needles.
Eat at your own risk!

Number 2, you used Oprah, a public figure, to make you're argument.

The fact that she's a public figure is irrelevant.


[...]

Okay, if the TV show disconnected the brake lines, there could be
argument of criminal negligence on her production, but otherwise the car
company could be sued. You don't sue Oprah because she's not the one
who designed it.

That will surely depend on the jurisdiction. Some places may reason that
your relationship was with Oprah (to be precise, her production company
that actually gave you the car), that she had a duty of care, and so it
is her that you should sue. It is then Oprah's responsibility to sue the
manufacturer.

Other places might decide that Oprah's company had no duty of care to
ensure that the car was in a fit state, and responsibility was entirely
on the car manufacturer. Some places might reason that you can sue both,
and it is up to the court to decide what percentage of responsibility
each party must take. Which case it is will depend on the laws of
whichever place has legal jurisdiction.

 

[Dave Angel]

Yeah and a programmer wouldn't go to a lawyer to GIVE SOMETHING AWAY
FOR FREE! I mean I couldn't brainwash this kind of common sense into
a person.

And the same thinking would say that there's no need to ever change the
oil in a car, just add more when the dipstick gets too low. And no need
to kill the weeds in a lawn, just keep spreading more grass seed. And
no need to call a plumber for a leak, just wrap it in lots of duct tape.
And no need for liability insurance for your house, as nobody's gotten
hurt yet. And no need to hire a programmer for a payroll program, just
let Jimmy the receptionist write it in his spare time.

I recently talked to a small business entrepreneur who thought she
didn't have to charge or file sales tax, because her business was still
small. Her accountant told her that was fine. I told her to ask a lawyer.

Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some
of the time.

 

[Mark Janssen]

Lots of obvious generalizations out there which are wrong, at least some of

the time.

You know, Dave.... funny thing is, right there is one of them.

 

[Chris Angelico]

If you want tin foil hats, though,
you'll have to notice what's right in front of your face -- you
already have voodoo right on your currency that YOU have accepted.
Egyptian pyramids on the U.S. dollar? All seeing eye?

I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
all-seeing-eye.

ChrisA
(And yeah, a mob of animals. You'll either know or not know why it's a mob.)

 

[Mark Janssen]

I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
all-seeing-eye.

Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech
because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for
basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this
true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they
entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American
near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that
continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this
while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some
far-away land that they hardly know?

Mark

 

[Chris Angelico]

Please pardon the implicit Americanism, I didn't disclaim my speech
because I think all G8-20? countries are somewhat accountable for
basing their currency or referencing their currency upon it (is this
true from European views?). In any case, trading with America, they
entangle themselves with its history -- including the Native American
near-genocide that happened here and the human rights abuses that
continue to this day. Is it not strange that no one notices this
while the talking heads on TV go on about human rights in some
far-away land that they hardly know?

Okay. I've read your post. Read it again. Rubbed my eyes in case there
was something in them and gone back for another read. And I can't
conjure any response but this:

Wut?

ChrisA

 

[Jake D]

I just put out a new version of im.py on GitHub. You can find it
here:
https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/im.py

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

I'm sorry, I'm somewhat lost here. The dollar I have here has a mob of
animals on one side and someone's face on the other - no pyramids, no
all-seeing-eye.

It must be counterfeit!

Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely.

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Well, out here in the good ol' USA, there no "duty of care"

That explains a lot.

 

[Chris Angelico]

It must be counterfeit!

Send it to me, I'll dispose of it safely.

Ahh, you studied counterfeit-recognition under the tutelage of Dennis
Bloodnok, I see.

ChrisA

 

[Grant Edwards]

I know, the legal system has us all under their thumbs. If I hand you
a rose, will you sue me because it doesn't smell like one?

He might. To win, he'd first have to show standing: he'd have to
prove that he was harmed (directly or indirectly by your action).

If no money changed hands?

[As usual: IANAL so consule a real lawyer before giving away roses
that don't smell like roses.]

Doesn't matter. What matters first is harm. Once he establishes that
he was harmed because the rose didn't smell, then the question of
responsibility for that harm arises.

Did you intend the harm? Did you forsee (or should have forseen) the
harm? Did you warn him about the possibility of harm or take any
other actions to prevent forseeable harm?

I don't have to cite anything! This is argument of the absurd and
should be inadmissible.

Absurdity has nothing to with it, we're talking about the law.

 

[Grant Edwards]

What if my thumb gets pricked by a thorn on the rose? Let's see....

[In the US]

1) You've got to show that the prick was harmful enough to you that
it merits legal remedy.

2) You've got to show that you had a reasonable expectation that
roses didn't have thorns.

3) You've got to show that whoever gave you the rose should have
forseen that would be harmed.

4) For extra bonus points, you try to show that whoever gave you the
rose knew you would be harmed or indended to harm you.

[In some areas of civil law, you can cash in your bonus points from
step four for treble damages!]

Are there that many people in the country who have no clue how the
legal system works?

 

[Mark Lawrence]

Where do YOU come up with the idea that you can't be sued if money
didn't change hands? In what jurisdiction is that true? Unless it's
true in every jurisdiction that the internet touches, I wouldn't trust
it to protect me.

ChrisA

The same place that he came up with this thread "Message passing syntax
for objects" on Python ideas? What the BDFL thought of it here
http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-ideas/20043/