Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
* Branden Robinson:
>> What about warranty disclaimers?
>
> What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding
> copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards?
It depends on who receives a license. For end users, the warranty
disclaimers are completely without effect. For redistributors, there
might be some effect if they are worded properly (which is usually not
the case because these disclaimers deal with the US situation only).
However, you are missing the point: With respect to warranties, the
copyright holder doesn't like the standard legal framework, so he adds
more conditions (or "notices") to his license to alter the situation
to his advantage. Isn't this precisely the situation that the
Dictator Test is designed to avoid?
For another example, look at copyleft licenses in general. The
copyright holder detests the current state of copyright law and tries
to work around it, using copyright law itself to implement something
which goes (at first glance) directly against the spirit of copyright
law. Some people even argue that this attempt at legislation violates
the US Constitution. You may not have noticed, but you are not the
only person who advocates the Dictator Test. 8-)
> In the United States, at least, I can't sue someone under product liability
> law if I don't own or have access to the product I claim is defective. In
> fact, as I understand it, I can't even be member of a class action on my
> behalf[1].
In Germany, general product liability law does not apply to software
(otherwise we wouldn't have a market for commercial off-the-shelf
software because it's so drastic).
>> Or quite reasonable clauses dealing with patent issues?
>
> Well, that's a pretty vague question.
The Dictator Test is pretty vague, too, so it's only fair to ask such
a question.
> What do you propose is permitted under law before the corresponding
> copyright license is granted that is not permitted afterwards?
I can settle patent infringement claims with a patent owner
indvidually, without bothering to whom I distribute the software.
The GPL, for example, takes away that possibility.
> What right do you have to produce a patented invention in the *absence* of
> a license that has a "quite reasonable clause dealing with patent issues"
> in it?
The clauses I'm interested in deal with third party patent claims, not
patents licensed by the copyright holder.
Reply to: