4 ms·

I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me un

by cm3 10y ago

I'm happy to find someone who has a deeper understanding of the issues it tries to solve by being so verbose. While you're here, do you think you can help me understand why Apache2's (and GPL(2,3))'s liability disclaimer clause effectively seems to disclaims just in part? BSD, MIT, ISC, all just disclaim any liabilities caused by the code, whereas GPL and Apache have an exception embedded in the clause, and I cannot make sense of it. Say you publish code under Apache or GPL that is then used by some uninformed who loses data and claims your tool is at fault, now claiming you to be liable as laid out in the sentence about exceptions to the rule. Why would one want that as an open source developer in code they publish but have no paid service contract of any kind in place that would cover liability claims? From Apache2: unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing This is the bit which is in no form included in BSD, MIT, ISC, and it rubs me the wrong way. I do understand that you're not above the law, but that's for courts to decide, and this bit doesn't seem to help either party (one of the contributors or the damaged license taker (aka user of the code)). I also don't understand how the following connects to the rest of the clause but other than that I can pretty much make sense of Apache2 even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Why would the contributor be advised of damages the code he's contributing himself or contributing to might do?

belorn 10y ago
I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge over disclaimer clauses is mostly from a days lecture by a legal historian professor, and he summarized it as mostly forgotten magic which is based on century old practices. For example, the practice of all caps just happens to be an example that a specific US agency gave in order to describe how to make a disclaimer "noticeable", but people just ran with it and now it just what everyone does. I do have a guess on why Apache2 mention applicable law, which was something I read in Swedish contract law (if licenses is a contract or not is, of course, also debated between lawyers). The law mentioned specific situations in which either a clause in a contract or the contract as a whole could be declared invalid, which could happen when for example a clause is "too unfair" or when a party can be said as unaware of the clause or its consequences. My guess is thus that the Apache2 disclaimer mention applicable law as a way to dodge laws in countries which otherwise could make the whole disclaimer invalid. As for the last question, a contributor might have sought advice from a lawyer which, as many lawyers do, gave an advice of caution. In some cases, foreknowledge about risks increases damages and risk of being sued, so my guess is that the disclaimer tries to avoid that situation. In both cases, it seems as mostly efforts to try make the disclaimer more safe to use in a international context, where MIT and BSD is more focused on the law which govern Massachusetts and Berkeley. I personally doubt however that the differences matter much in practice, particular in the US and EU.

by cm3 10y ago

belorn 10y ago

I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge over disclaimer clauses is mostly from a days lecture by a legal historian professor, and he summarized it as mostly forgotten magic which is based on century old practices. For example, the practice of all caps just happens to be an example that a specific US agency gave in order to describe how to make a disclaimer "noticeable", but people just ran with it and now it just what everyone does. I do have a guess on why Apache2 mention applicable law, which was something I read in Swedish contract law (if licenses is a contract or not is, of course, also debated between lawyers). The law mentioned specific situations in which either a clause in a contract or the contract as a whole could be declared invalid, which could happen when for example a clause is "too unfair" or when a party can be said as unaware of the clause or its consequences. My guess is thus that the Apache2 disclaimer mention applicable law as a way to dodge laws in countries which otherwise could make the whole disclaimer invalid. As for the last question, a contributor might have sought advice from a lawyer which, as many lawyers do, gave an advice of caution. In some cases, foreknowledge about risks increases damages and risk of being sued, so my guess is that the disclaimer tries to avoid that situation. In both cases, it seems as mostly efforts to try make the disclaimer more safe to use in a international context, where MIT and BSD is more focused on the law which govern Massachusetts and Berkeley. I personally doubt however that the differences matter much in practice, particular in the US and EU.