Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.
To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections.
You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.
Isn't the argument presented here that just because two things have the same "no responsibility in event of failure"-clause does not mean likelihood of failure, robustness, battletesting, etc, are comparable? Or am I missing something
Well, I didn't read the legalese but read this short sentence. That makes it 1000% better for me right now, you can't abstract away the message channel. Maybe the best would be to have a short 10-line summary then the legally bounding legalese. (Edit: nonsense spelling error)
And now I'm curious whether this would work inside a container or not. I know dind is a thing, but I don't recall whether it needs special hacks that bocker lacks.
See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/
Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.