Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
E-mail Print r 1   · Read More · 71 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 358663
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: GPL - same with most other licenses
by jabbotts on Wed 15th Apr 2009 13:30 UTC in reply to "GPL"
Member since:

Even Microsoft and the closed source licenses include a "use at your own risk" clause. That's the difference between being the one who can be blamed and being legally accountable. We can blame Microsoft for a flaw in Windows or Xorg for an issue with X but we can't take either party to court over it. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4