Re: plain language disclaimer
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Paul Kienzle wrote:
> > BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE,
> Does the free license change the applicability of the law?
> And if it does, doesn't the fact that the license was provided
> for free immediately apply even if you don't mention that it
> was a free license in the disclaimer?
In Germany for example, you have to warrent for whatever you buy. Only
when you make someone an present, then you can only be hold resposible for
severe errors or errors you make although you should have known to create
an error with it.
>
> > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM,
> Okay.
>
> > TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
> Can it possibly be otherwise?
Any licence saying: "there is no warrenty" is automatically void in this
point in most countries. Therefor it says: "There is so less waarenty as
possible". But this is also void in Germany for example.
> > "AS IS"
> How can you provide something as it isn't? Or might someone
> interpret TODO and BUGS as promises for future enhancements?
It could be provided as program bundled with life-long garanty to enhance
the code or bla...
> > WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
> > INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> > MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> "any kind" includes all possible warranties.
> "either expressed or implied" includes all possible warranties.
> "including, but not limited to" includes all possible warranties.
> "the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness" are implied
> warranties, and they are already explicitly mentioned.
>
> So how about: THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND.
I think this is for the anglo-british and american kind of read
laws. There this ANY KIND could not be sufficient.
> > UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW
> It cannot be otherwise.
This is clause like above, so void in countries like germany.
>
> > INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> > DAMAGES
> "general+special" == any
> "incidental+consequential" == any
> So how about: INCLUDING ANY DAMAGES
As said above, the aglo-british-american reading of law could be of an
other opinion.
> > (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED
> > INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
> > FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
> The phrase "including but not limited to" doesn't add any conditions
It states, that the term before it is meant to the things behind it, but
is not only this.
>
> So how about: IN NO EVENT WILL ANYBODY BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES,
> EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
I think, the copyright-holder (speak: you and not the persons using the
program) are meant, so this is something else.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: