Re: Open source licenses are /actually/ contracts?!?

[Tim Tyler]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Tim Tyler wrote:

> > > > If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
> > > You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
> > > Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
> > > also
> > >
> > > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:13269
> > > (Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review)
> > Right - but surely you get the point: a license doesn't
> > take away any freedoms of the recipient - therefore
>
> Which license are you talking about?

E.g.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

> The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3) purports to impose a whole bunch
> of covenants ("conditions" but not "conditions precedent")
> upon licensees.

No it doesn't.

The term "covenant" occurrs once in:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

...where it refers to patent licenses.

A condition is not a covenant.

The "Disclaimer of Warranty" and "Limitation of Liability"
/might/ be regarded as taking away the recipients' rights.

I am not clear about what legal force - if any - those
paragraphs have.  Indeed, I doubt they have any legal
force - since there is no obligation to read the license,
*especially* if you are not copying the software.

Are there any precidents for free software authors being
successfully sued over supposedly-implied warranties
on their software?
--
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim@tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.