From: Patrick M. <pat...@pa...> - 2003-02-24 07:53:38
|
Hi, I'm using opengpg/PGP for a while now and placed my public key on the www.keyserver.net and my website. Our Company is thinking of using PGP for some people. But want to by public/private keys at verisign.=20 Is the a difference between my way using a public keyserver of verisign? TIA Patrick --=20 Knowledge in a databank,is like food which is in a deepfreeze. Nothing comes out better than what is initially put in. PGP Key: http://users.pandora.be/rivendell/marquetp.gpg Registered Linux User #44550 http://counter.li.org |
From: Martin S. <sh...@gm...> - 2003-02-25 02:23:01
|
Patrick Marquetecken wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm using opengpg/PGP for a while now and placed my public key on the > www.keyserver.net and my website. > > Our Company is thinking of using PGP for some people. But want to by > public/private keys at verisign. > > Is the a difference between my way using a public keyserver of > verisign? Well, that's one of these manager things: They don't really know what they're doing, so they think "If it's expensive it must be good!" Furthermore they like to have someone they could sue if anything goes wrong... Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 7.3 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ |
From: Joe K. <kle...@we...> - 2003-02-25 02:30:51
|
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 21:22, Martin Stricker wrote: > Well, that's one of these manager things: They don't really know what > they're doing, so they think "If it's expensive it must be good!" > Furthermore they like to have someone they could sue if anything goes > wrong... Even though the EULA always states that the user CAN NOT SUE. -- "It's time to KISS your BOT goodBYYYYYYEEEEEE!!!!!" -- Metabee, 'Medabots' |
From: Martin S. <sh...@gm...> - 2003-02-26 01:49:48
|
Joe Klemmer wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 21:22, Martin Stricker wrote: > > > Well, that's one of these manager things: They don't really know > > what they're doing, so they think "If it's expensive it must be > > good!" Furthermore they like to have someone they could sue if > > anything goes wrong... > > Even though the EULA always states that the user CAN NOT SUE. Did you ever see a *manager* read an EULA? ;=D BTW, depending on local laws, this EULA statement can be invalid. In certain circumstances in Germany the user *can* sue - but only if s/he *bought* the software, hence no danger for free software. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 7.3 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ |
From: M. F. <m.f...@in...> - 2003-02-26 05:02:15
|
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 02:49:29 at 02:49:29AM +0100, Martin Stricker (sh...@gm...) wrote: > > Did you ever see a *manager* read an EULA? ;=D BTW, depending on local > laws, this EULA statement can be invalid. In certain circumstances in > Germany the user *can* sue - but only if s/he *bought* the software, > hence no danger for free software. > Maybe not for Free SW itself, and for the actual developer who released under GPL, but what about packagers? If I *buy* a boxed set from Red Hat, Mandrake, whoever, can *they* be sued if something in that box reformats the hard disk? I 've been asked a similar question in the office: I got away saying: 1) Yeah, just as you could with MS, and with the same probability of success 2) This is what backups are for, right? 3) (Dilbertish) We aren't doing anything meaningful anyway, why bother? The world might even be a better place *without* our product... Still, what is the correct answer? Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ Preserve the old, but know the new. |
From: Joe K. <kle...@we...> - 2003-02-26 22:44:22
|
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 00:13, M. Fioretti wrote: > Maybe not for Free SW itself, and for the actual developer who > released under GPL, but what about packagers? If I *buy* a boxed set > from Red Hat, Mandrake, whoever, can *they* be sued if something in that > box reformats the hard disk? I 've been asked a similar question in > the office: I got away saying: > > 1) Yeah, just as you could with MS, and with the same probability of > success > 2) This is what backups are for, right? > 3) (Dilbertish) We aren't doing anything meaningful anyway, why > bother? The world might even be a better place *without* our > product... > > Still, what is the correct answer? From what little info I have gotten the actual answer is very close to #1. If you read the licenses for 99.9% of the software (and most other incorporeal "products") it says that there is no guarantee for any fitness of usability or merchantability. They also wave any damage that the software might cause either accidentally or intentionally. -- "It's time to KISS your BOT goodBYYYYYYEEEEEE!!!!!" -- Metabee, 'Medabots' |
From: Martin S. <sh...@gm...> - 2003-02-27 02:24:48
|
"M. Fioretti" wrote: > Maybe not for Free SW itself, and for the actual developer who > released under GPL, but what about packagers? If I *buy* a boxed set > from Red Hat, Mandrake, whoever, can *they* be sued if something in > that box reformats the hard disk? I 've been asked a similar question > in the office: > Still, what is the correct answer? IANAL, but a seller is only responsible for what he produces. So someone who sells a Linux distro is responsible for the distro, not it's software (except the self-created software). Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 7.3 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ |