Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. 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. 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. Also, if anyone is going to get sued, isn't it more likely to be the distributor than the author? I would guess that the disclaimer in the GPL is of more value to Red Hat, say, than Joe Hacker, and I rather suspect that the authors of the GPL had distributors rather than authors in mind when they wrote that part. > Then again, the > effectiveness of warranty disclaimers in a "you only need to accept this > license if you distribute the software" license like the GPL are already > a debated topic. 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 don't think it's a magic spell that makes you imune from being sued. I don't think such a spell exists.
