Re: RE-PROPOSED: The Dictator Test
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.
You have hit the nail on the head. The warranty disclaimers don't say "You
agree not to sue..." or "You agree that there is no warranty..."
> Usually there is a condition of the licence that
> requires that notice to be preserved, but the disclaimer itself isn't
> saying that you must do or this or must not do that if you distribute
> the software.
Right.
> In particular, the GPL warranty disclaimer is presumably
> supposed to have some kind of effect even if you don't copy the
> software and therefore don't use the licence.
Indeed.
> IANAL, but as I see it the disclaimer is a warning to the user not to
> expect too much from the software, and the use of a licence clause
> that requires the disclaimer to be preserved is proof that
> contributors and distributors did everything they could to ensure that
> the warning reached the user.
I believe you are precisely right.
> I don't think it's a magic spell that
> makes you imune from being sued.
Nope.
> I don't think such a spell exists.
"Covenants not to sue" -- statements like "In exchange for these rights, I
agree not to sue the author". Those are often declared to be invalid, of
course, since they're ususally against public policy.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: