 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
On 23/08/2011 23.21, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
Of course. I didn't say that. I said that making available potentially dangerous code, even if the intent wasn't at all criminal, could be deemed criminal.I suspect that in some jurisdictions not even a GPL-like disclaimer would be enough to release the creator from all the responsibilities.There isn't any juridictation where a GPL-like disclaimer allows you free, intentional criminal conduct.
For example, IIRC, U.S.A. doesn't allow the export of cryptographically strong algorithms. I suppose that if you do that in the U.S.A., that's a criminal act.
But in some other countries this is perfectly legal.Same thing with cracking DRM software. Some countries allow doing that if the purpose is making personal backup copies.
My example was to put in perspective the hyperbole of David Kastrup regarding the bullet.
The publication of information (and software, after all, is information) can cause unintentional damage. The limits of the law in what is considered unintentional (or "right of information", if you take another POV) vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.