On 5/25/2005 at 11:36 Darren Duncan wrote: >Moreover, in a discussion about open source software licenses I was >part of a few weeks ago, it was brought up that making a work public >domain was a very bad thing to do, because it opened up the author to >a whole bunch of legal liability that they had no recourse from, >which they wouldn't have if they retained their copyright but used a >permissive license. I think the gist was that the software couldn't >have a disclaimer of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone >could sue the author if something went wrong when using it. I don't >know how true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in >the answer.
Courts can hold any part of a contract valid they want to. Courts have struck down disclaimers of liability in several cases, particularly in cases where the product causes loss of life and the licenser (creator) should have known it could happen. If you die bungee jumping and it is discovered the rope was beyond the rated end of life the disclaimer of liability will not protect them. If the rope was new it would protect them. (See a lawyer for how this applies to your case) Generally you liability is limited based on what was paid. If you pay a lot of money for something the court is likely to conclude that you expected that value from it. When you get something from the public domain the courts are likely to conclude that you got what you paid for - in fact you could be liable for using public domain software that fails, instead of the creator of the software. Only a court can say what will happen, and then only after examining the case. Only a lawyer can give you specific advice.
