March 22, 2009 Re: eliminate writeln et comp? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to dsimcha | On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:02 AM, dsimcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Having been involved with occasional contract disputes, I concur that the simpler and more obvious the language is, the better (and the lower your lawyer bill is :-) ).
>
> A perfect argument for the WTFPL!
As I understand it, in some places a warranty on software is implied if not specifically disclaimed. That's why such disclaimers can be found in just about every software license. I am not a lawyer, but I heard this from a lawyer.
--bb
|
March 23, 2009 Re: eliminate writeln et comp? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to dsimcha | dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Having been involved with occasional contract disputes, I concur that
>> the simpler and more obvious the language is, the better (and the lower
>> your lawyer bill is :-) ).
>
> A perfect argument for the WTFPL!
Yeah, but imagine a big lawsuit involving the WTFPL. There'd be a huge court case about what the F-word means. It'd be hilarious.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation