IANAL, TINLA. On Mon, 01 Sep 2003, Mika Fischer wrote: > Could you then comment on the quoted comment on a ruling in my first > email? This particular ruling is rather interesting, because the main issue was the ability of the license agreement to compel arbitration, rather than the generic warranty disclaimer. That is, the issue of the applicability of Communicator's no warranty clause to the issues at hand was not or had not been raised upon appeal. Regardless, the question still has to be asked: Is the notice of license used in a package or program sufficient to place consumers on notice of the terms of said license? I'd personally argue that the inclusion of a LICENSE file in the source distribution, or a /usr/share/doc/<pacakgename>/copyright is enough, at the very least, to put consumers on notice of the no warranty clause pertaining to use of the software. Furthermore, the absence of monetary exchange (eg, payment for the software) tends to lend credence to the warranty waiver. Finally, it could rather trivially be argued that the use of the program establishes a contractual relationship between a consumer and the developer or distributor. If the consumer were to argue that he/she had not consented to the license, then a countersuit under copyright law is a logical conclusion. If you are seriously concerned about the warranty clause, etc. please don't hesitate to talk to an attorney or solicitor. Don Armstrong -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgp555RSpqZQx.pgp
Description: PGP signature