On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:24:36PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote: > Hi Cascardo, > > Thanks for the reply. > Your explanation makes sense. > I think I have to looked into see how NZ Consumer Guarantees act applies > to goods and services distributed for free. >
See Part 5, Section 41 "Exceptions". " (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply in any case where goods or services are supplied otherwise than in trade. (2) Nothing in this Act shall give any person a right of redress against a charitable organisation in any case where goods or services are supplied by the charitable organisation for the principal purpose of benefiting the person to whom the supply is made. " I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. I guess item 1 would apply here. Cascardo. > Cheers, > Kesara > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:12:12PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12:31PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > In one of the talks [1] on 2016 Kiwi PyCon (New Zealand's annual Python > > > conference) [2], the presenter mentioned that GNU GPL's "Disclaimer of > > > Warranty" is invalid against New Zealand consumer guarantee act [3] which > > > offers warranty against any goods or services consumed by consumers. > > > > > > Does that mean if someone sells a GNU GPL software, is there a chance > > > that license could be invalid? > > > > > > Can the “Consumer Guarantees acts" like these affect the original > > > authors, even though they didn't sell the software? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Kesara > > > > > > > That's a very good question. Too bad it has been posed as truth, or so > > you seem to have understood the speaker's statement. > > > > Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. > > Further disclaimers: I haven't read the referred act, and don't know NZ > > law. > > > > Nonetheless, the comments below are generic and may as well apply here. > > And if they don't, I think it's important to try to clarify such kind of > > doubts. > > > > Now, I just watched the segment, and I guess Tim just meant that it is > > important to know law in general, and how copyright works, but > > unfortunately made the comment about guarantees, and misread the GPL > > that you may not offer any warranty as in "absolutely no warranty". > > > > Let's shake this GPL thing off first. GPLv2 section 1 says: > > > > "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and > > you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." > > > > That is to say that any one who distributes verbatim copies of the > > software may offer warranty. If the law requires you to do so, the GPL > > does not forbid you to. > > > > Now to your question of whether the license could be invalid, this would > > be in detriment of the consumer, as copyright by default is a "CAN'T". > > You can't copy the software, you can't modify the software, you can't do > > this, you can't do that, in some jurisdictions, one might even interpret > > that you can't use the software, not without the copyright holder > > permission. The license in the tool that copyright holders use to give > > some such permissions. If the license is entirely invalid, then the > > consumer could be in violation of copyright law (usually, civil not > > criminal offense, but watch out for some jurisdictions and some special > > cases). > > > > Now, if the distribution of the software is done for free, would it be > > fair to require any kind of warranty? Well, in case the law requires > > such warranties any way, the GPL is nicely crafted to protect the author > > as much as possible. Take a snippet of Section 12, for example: > > > > "IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING > > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR > > REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR > > DAMAGES, ..." > > > > Note the "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW". So, if the law doesn't > > require it, the license is advising the user that the author should not > > be held liable for damages. Now, if the law requires some liability, > > then, that should be the most that you would have "UNLESS AGREED TO IN > > WRITING", that is to say, some distributor may offer you extra warranty > > for a fee. > > > > So, the warranty sections of the GPL are there to protect the author > > from possible liabilities, and it's much more than many other licenses > > do. > > > > Now, if you want more protection than that, you can refrain from > > distributing any software at all. In fact, there are many other risks > > today for distributing software. There is patent law, and many patent > > trolls out there. There are criminal laws against some kind of software > > in some jurisdictions (DMCA is one example, another one is recent > > Brazilian law against producing or distributing software that allows for > > "computer invasion"). > > > > So I guess that was Tim's intention, to say that we should be aware of > > laws that affect distribution of software. > > > > Regards. > > Cascardo. > > > > > > > References: > > > [1] https://youtu.be/S-Le3PWHqZA?t=696 > > > [1] https://nzpug.org > > > [1] > > > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/DLM311053.html > > > - -- > > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > iQFCBAEBCgAsJRxLZXNhcmEgUmF0aG5heWFrZSA8a2VzYXJhQGtlc2FyYS5saz4F > > > AlfWf4YACgkQgbKTpleptaHqZQf8CDLszfO/MJViqm6bicPAr8Icr8OWo78Dvh8y > > > L7SjR6OKazweH0oheWhZdqoAKSlz3IZkaEW22LmT8OwRY46vWNNPTlP+Q07tmcyG > > > HKAdKj4a6uvofOGOJYBZSV53ervCXQHj/t3P18ME4jGP1VnZlFUlLpm5kjzxgbuk > > > fHLFwL6ka/9wpGjdAZ+a4eaooSZIhvYJC1NUs3vlpFARfgN/+W7NzEwPTa3q5fbf > > > CkH3jdypGOoBJyft4eL3lhNAhO0upFnbexKJrTmOZaKlPj//fA0hoEj4UOQNpNJH > > > DCEJ909cV7Ab1Cm+/I386ih4UqdkWpzn///xIl3pefy9dMM8dg== > > > =QCQA > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kesara Rathnayake > > http://kesara.lk | https://fq.nz
