Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>:
>>
>> > Good point about warranty disclaimers, though. Assuming you acquired
>> > the software lawfully, then you would have the right to use the
>> > software, and the right to sue the author if it didn't work, so this
>> > test as written would prohibit warranty disclaimers.
>>
>> A typical warranty disclaimer doesn't prohibit you from suing the
>> author; it just makes it less likely that you would win if you did.
>>
>> As I see it, the warranty disclaimer isn't a condition of the licence.
>> It's a notice.
>
> While I believe this is true in the US, for somewhat obscure and
> frankly rather silly reasons (precedent, not legislation), in the UK
> they only work if they are part of the license. (Notably this means
> that if there is no license, the warranty disclaimer is invalid, and
> statutory warranty applies).
Weird.
But let's take a different tack. If I remember correctly, implied
warranties are incurred by distribution, not by licensing, at least in the
US. (Is this true in Britain as well?)
Now, in the UK, can you agree to the license for purposes of the licensed
activities *without* losing your right to sue regarding any statutory
warranties which would cover fair dealing, library privilege, or other
always-permitted uses of the copyrighted work? If so, there's no problem
in the UK either.
On a tangential point, in most US states, you just can't disclaim statutory
warranties of fitness and merchantability, whether you try to or not, and
so those parts of the clauses are just bogus. You can state that there are
no other warranties, but that's usually redundant because there are usually
no other implied warranties (caveat emptor). So in the US, the warranty
clauses seem to approach no-ops. IANAL, of course.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: