Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > 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. 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.
