How about this analogy:
Person A always has a peanut butter sandwich in his lunch. (The sandwich being the GW launcher)
Person B has a peanut allergy, He forgot his lunch one day. (The allergy being the clone's ability to brick due to disabling checksum checks)
Person B steals Person A's lunch (Copying the launcher)
Person A tells person B that the sandwich contains peanunts (The GW team warning to not modify their launcher)
Person B eats it anyways, and dies due to his severe allergy of peanuts (The modified clone launcher bricking a 3ds)
Person B's friends (Buyers of clone carts) get angry at person A despite him not deliberatly poisoning person B.
Who is in the wrong here?
Your analogy sucks, and I've got a better one for you:
Person A steals sandwiches from one location, and sells them at a large markup to hungry people at another place
Person B notices this, and attempts to copy his method, and offers his sandwiches at a lower price (undercutting Person A).
Buyers are pleased at the choice, and pleased at Person Bs lower prices.
Person A is pissed that Person B is copying his method and calls person B a "theif"
One day, Person A pours an unidentified substance onto his sandwhiches before selling them
Person B notices this, and attempts to do the same thing by stealing some of Person As "substance" during the night, and pouring it onto his own sandwiches
The next day, all of Person Bs customers die from cyonide poisoning. Person A laughs and says he switched the canister
Person A says he feels no remorose at all the deaths since he says he wasn't involved directly, and says Person Bs customers were "thieves" anyway
In the above example, Person A is the asshole.
