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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100630013534.750c1f7...@nail.towers.org.uk