On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Sam Liddicott wrote: > > WE know that the GPL means license rather than sale, but do the > customers infer such after reading the license? I think "not sold" is a > very important part of the statement, one that needs clearly making. > > Should we limit the license such that if law implies certain extended > terms the license is rather revoked than extended? > i.e. the software is licensed under such limited terms or not at all - > if local law extends warranty or license beyond limits then license is > not available in your locality.
I'm not sure that would hold as you'd be retroactively revoking the license in response to a courts ruling which might well be seen as contempt of the court. Certainly the law already holds that there are some implied warranties - the warrantee that the software wont cause damage unless is states that it will. Perhaps a more pertinent question is how the courts might consider damages. In the case of Free Software will the courts hold that the user clearly understood, or *should have understood*, that there would be no recourse to a claim for damages given that no license fee was paid. Of course in the case of software for which a charge of some kind has been made there is a basis for a claim for damages. Still it's all academic unless someone tries to bring a case in which case the whole can of worms re software licensing terms is likely to come into question. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ up to 8Mb ADSL Broadband from just £14.98 ** FREE ADSL MIGRATION ** http://www.linuxadsl.co.uk/ ADSL Routers from just £21.98 _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
