Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!samsung!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Unlimited software warranties
Message-ID: <3954.27ee2ed2@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 22:09:38 GMT
References: <1991Mar12.015256.16098@ico.isc.com> <8024@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <1991Mar13.021244.2538@ico.isc.com> <1991Mar16.171033.380@am.sublink.org> <12600@pucc.Princeton.EDU> <497@tivoli.UUCP>
Lines: 25

In article <497@tivoli.UUCP>, alan@tivoli.UUCP (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
> In article <12600@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EGNILGES@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
> 
> [much good flaming deleted ... lots of stuff to chew on].
> 
> This actually raises a different but related question:  when the lawsuits
> begin, WHO IS AT FAULT?  Can we distiguish between "at fault" and
> "legally liable?"  Possible culprits:
> 
> 	1.  Marketing people
> 	2.  Senior management (i.e. officers of the firm)
> 	3.  Development management
> 	4.  Developers/programmers
> 	5.  Quality Assurance management
> 	6.  QA engineers
> 	7.  The customer
> 
IMHO I believe that there is something called "strict liability" coming into
play here, like if you did the code, you did it, and you had better be able to
say why and show that it was the best possible code that could be done that
way.  Then find a lawyer.   Preferably a software lawyer.  How about a legal
knowledge assistant?

GXKambic
standard disclaimer