Re: logo license with debian - no warranty missing?
Charles Plessy wrote:
> it would be much more productive if this scenario would be accompanied with
> some data and facts about which law in which country make the non-warranty
> disclaimer necessary, exemplified by cases where these laws have successfully
> been used in court by the plaintiff.
Here is a commentary about implied warranties referring to the
Universal Commercial Code adopted by most US states: Desai et al,
'Information Technology Litigation and Software Failure', The Journal
of Information, Law and Technology (JILT) 2002 (2)
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_2/desai/#a2.2.2>
(found through http://www.bailii.org/ )
> In the absence of such an analysis, the discussion is purely about fear,
> uncertainty and doubt. [...]
If we have to take everything back to basics, this list will flood.
If someone wishes to question a widespread practice, then that is
good, but I suggest it's worth doing some research first and posting
the results before suggesting it's FUD.
(Now, if someone wants to question why disclaimers are often in
hard-to-read capitals throughout... ;-) )
> It is the addition of extra clauses and vague disclaimers that sometimes make
> licenses non-free (clauses like ‘do not kill people with my software’), so
> let's resist to temptation of making our license statements longer than what
> is necessary.
Sure, but it need not be very long and doesn't make it non-free.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: