Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 08:36:12PM +0100, 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. > > While I believe this is true in the US, for somewhat obscure and > frankly rather silly reasons (precedent, not legislation), in the UK > they only work if they are part of the license. (Notably this means > that if there is no license, the warranty disclaimer is invalid, and > statutory warranty applies).
Weird. But let's take a different tack. If I remember correctly, implied warranties are incurred by distribution, not by licensing, at least in the US. (Is this true in Britain as well?) Now, in the UK, can you agree to the license for purposes of the licensed activities *without* losing your right to sue regarding any statutory warranties which would cover fair dealing, library privilege, or other always-permitted uses of the copyrighted work? If so, there's no problem in the UK either. On a tangential point, in most US states, you just can't disclaim statutory warranties of fitness and merchantability, whether you try to or not, and so those parts of the clauses are just bogus. You can state that there are no other warranties, but that's usually redundant because there are usually no other implied warranties (caveat emptor). So in the US, the warranty clauses seem to approach no-ops. IANAL, of course. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.