Hi, Edmund! * Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 12:12]: > I'm not really sure what it means to make a "no warranty" clause > "legally binding". If you are trying to avoid getting sued then you > might be better off if you make a sincere effort to inform users of > the potential risks rather than rely on some legal gobbledygook to > give you magical protection.
While I agree with that I assume they are trying to prevent to be sued when a company uses their software and it stops working because of a bug. cf. GPL clauses 11 and 12. Another point I remember are import/export restrictions which may be in place (for example in France) because the software contains cryptographic code. > Common sense says that it is more useful to warn people in ordinary > natural language of the real risks specific to a particular product > rather than attach the same legalese that nobody reads to every > product. Agreed. > > [Full copy of GPL] > > Which includes, presumably, the following words: > > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. And what does that mean? May I download Emacs, not accept the GPL, use it, run into problems with my business because of using it and then sue the FSF? > Yes, but if you download a program, are you copying it, or is the web > site copying it, or both? I rather suspect that if you can obtain the > data by following a URL (even one containing the string "&accept=yes") > then it might be the web site that is copying, as someone can always > claim to have obtained the data by following a URL they saw in IRC > rather than by filling in your form. I'm just speculating here. IANAL and I suspect such questions can only be answered by a lawyer or a person with much experience in this area. Cheers, Mika
