This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Gcc installation problem

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: dank at kegel dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,lfei at ecn dot purdue dot edu,mrs at apple dot com
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:52:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Gcc installation problem
References: <20030819034136.3A267F2A59@nile.gnat.com>

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 11:41 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:

Of course, Robert has kindly sidestepped the issue of whether they *can* validly give you no warranty. Which i guess is better than trying to explain what "No warranty, to THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" means in any particular set of circumstances.
The phrase "to the EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" is a common one,
it simply means that you are disclaiming the warranty to the maximum
extent permitted, but not any more.

Except that the maximum extent permitted varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Hence the term APPLICABLE LAW). Thats why i said it was difficult to explain what it means in any particular set of circumstances (IE circumstances = time and place).

I have no idea why this simple concept causes people trouble,

The concept is simple, no doubt. The implementation (IE what the heck the applicable law actually is in a given jurisdiction) is not. There are general federal laws that give you a base, but it really does vary state to state as to what you can get away with in terms of giving no warranty.

but for
sure this is OT anyway.

Sure sure.

References:
- Re: Gcc installation problem
  - From: Robert Dewar

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]