-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/08/13 14:28, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > TJ wrote at 19:55 (EDT) on Sunday: >> "...and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed, >> including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a >> particular purpose accuracy, completeness.." > > The above reads to me as compatible with the terms GPLv2§11 and GPLv2§12. Do > you find some contradiction between the text quoted above and those sections? > > (Note that GPLv3§7(a) makes this sort of compatibility analysis of warranty > disclaimers even easier.)
My question was more from a user's perspective as to what remedies might be available. The crux of what I was thinking about when I wrote the original question was: 1. The majority of the code in exFAT is copyright Samsung 2. Samsung license the code under GPLv2 2a. GPLv2§2 and §3, I assume, doesn't apply to Samsung since exFAT is not a modification nor a copy, it is an original work by Samsung. 3. Samsung imposes a supplementary contractual agreement on a user wishing to download the source code 4. That contract includes disclaimers as to accuracy and completeness 5. What would be the user's recourse if the source-code proved to be incomplete In the devices exFAT is combined with the rest of the Linux kernel so for the binary distribution Samsung is both a distributor and an original author. I think many of us regular developers find this area of the GPL difficult to understand because, it seems to me at least, there are two quite different readings of the license depending on whether you receive the work and source directly from the copyright holder, or from someone who is copying and distributing. Your contributions recently have helped me, at least, to get a better understanding. Thank-you. > I am not aware of any SFLC press release on this matter, nor of any work done by SFLC on this matter. Of course - it isn't hard when you're not familiar with the intricacies of the organisational acronyms to get SFC (Software Freedom Conservancy) and SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) confused! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlISNfIACgkQ7+w3pCnNYIDLhgCeOXYtzvHU/+6VhfcSv1FMikpg SCUAoNGe43i77c6d5bEewi1RdXe4ibJx =mdve -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
