Thorsten Glaser: > Patrick Schleizer dixit: > >> It is an established fact in case history that Terms of Service are only > > The warranty disclaimer is not terms of “service”, it’s a condition > on the licence on the work, issued to the general public on the > condition that they accept it. > > Since copyright is by default, there has to be a licence in order > for someone to do anything meaningful with it. Therefore, one has > to look up the licence, and to accept it means to be bound to both.
That might work for many licenses. Which brings me to a related point, why this might not work for GPLv3. I've dedicated a separate e-mail thread for it: [License-discuss] GPL developer protections: Is limitation/disclaimer of warranty legally non-binding? [1] > I am worried, that the disclaimer and limitation of warranty clauses 15 > and 16 by GPLv3 are legally non-binding, ineffective and would be > disregarded by courts. > > This is because I've read on gnu.org the position that the GPL is not a > contract [1] and due to the following quote of GPLv3: > >> 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. >> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a >> copy of the Program. > > So the user can stop reading after that clause? > > The user could argue to have never agreed to the license (nor by > extension its liability waivers in section 7). Without an agreement > however that comes with a limitation/disclaimer of warranty, how would > there be legally binding warranty limitation/disclaimer? > > In the absence of an agreement it follows that the defaults apply. And > the default by law comes with implied warranty. > > The user could argue to have assumed it's was implied it's like freeware > (common closed source, nonfree software that is free in price), without > terms of service, therefore only provisions by law apply, and therefore > limitation/disclaimer of warranty legally are non-binding? > > GPLv3 vs proprietary software EULAs: > - GPLv3: a license; acceptance not required for running the program. > - EULAs of proprietary software: an agreement where acceptance is > required, using most times clickwrap, so any disclaimers are likely > legally binding. > > Other Libre Software licenses such as MIT do not contain such a "You are > not required to accept" clause. So I wonder why GPL invented it? > > Kind regards, > Patrick > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html [1] http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2019-March/020387.html _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
