[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> [2005-08-16 13:14]:
> > Of
> > course, I read once that in every contract is the story of individual
> > loopholes used and subsequently closed in the next version, so maybe
> > this falls into that category.
>
> One of the great mistakes is that these licenses all read like
> contracts. They are not contracts, because they don't impose
> obligations on both parties. The license is a unilateral statement
> that the author is waiving certain rights, in particular
> copyright. If the licenses were written like that, it would be
> much clearer that the author cannot possibly have any obligations
> (or duty of care) towards the user. Disclaimers about
> responsibility for nuclear catastrophe only tend to increase the
> impression that there are some events for which the author DOES
> take responsibility.
My concern about tacking extra disclaimers, exactly that. It
would muddy the blanket disclaimer. An explict disclaimer, would
appear to create a lot of implicit claims.
> (In fact, at least in the UK, you're responsible for any serious
> injury or loss of life caused by your negligence whether or not
> there was a contractual relationship or duty of care, so this
> kind of disclaimer is particularly worthless.)
I'm not adverse to noting that the software is provided as-is.
It's legally useful in that it sets expectations.
I see your point. It's pointless to say you'll not be held
responsible for crimial conduct.
This is all helpful. Thank you.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
