|
|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-09 12:18:37
David Abrahams wrote:
>
> IIUC, there are no absolutes here (i.e. no law says "there is an
> implicit guarantee"). Legally, it's just a question of what looks
> like an attractive/vulnerable target. IIUC, the deal is that without
> an explicit disclaimer, lawyers feel they have more leverage in
> claiming that there was an implicit guarantee.
Thank you for the explanation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk