3 ms·

> All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business i

by abtinf 9y ago

> All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business is based overseas. Does that mean that pretty much all software licenses are illegal in Australia, since most specifically include a phrase stating the software is not fit for any purpose?

gpm 9y ago
It likely means that that for sold software that term of the license is void and does nothing. It might, but probably doesn't, void the entire EULA/license. It almost certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that it's perfectly legal to send people contracts that don't do anything because they are legally void. I don't know Australian law, this is just me guessing from the mix of Canadian and American law I am somewhat familiar with (and I am still not a lawyer even there).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mkj 9y ago
Probably. "Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful" https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_AC...
rmccue 9y ago
If the software is free (no cost), I don’t think it would count as a sale. It would apply to paid software though. (It also doesn’t apply if it costs more than $40k though, since that’s no longer a business-to-consumer transaction.)
- shakna 9y ago
  It wouldn't be a sale anyway, it's a contract, and contracts aren't required to transfer monetary means, only benefits. If the free software includes analytics or automatic bug reporting, then the company has a significant benefit, so the contract is active. Other things may also make such a contract live. However, unfair terms in a contract, such as MIT's no warranty or claim under any circumstances, would simply get ignored. The entire contract isn't void if unfair terms are present, just those terms. I should probably note, the last time I explored this area, the only software licenses I could find that had decent legal terminology where the Creative Commons, everyone else tends to forget to precede broad statements with classifiers like "to the extent permittable by law".

by abtinf 9y ago

gpm 9y ago

It likely means that that for sold software that term of the license is void and does nothing. It might, but probably doesn't, void the entire EULA/license. It almost certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that it's perfectly legal to send people contracts that don't do anything because they are legally void. I don't know Australian law, this is just me guessing from the mix of Canadian and American law I am somewhat familiar with (and I am still not a lawyer even there).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

mkj 9y ago

Probably. "Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful" https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_Guarantees_web.pdf https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/05/0553FT_AC...

rmccue 9y ago

If the software is free (no cost), I don’t think it would count as a sale. It would apply to paid software though. (It also doesn’t apply if it costs more than $40k though, since that’s no longer a business-to-consumer transaction.)

shakna 9y ago
It wouldn't be a sale anyway, it's a contract, and contracts aren't required to transfer monetary means, only benefits. If the free software includes analytics or automatic bug reporting, then the company has a significant benefit, so the contract is active. Other things may also make such a contract live. However, unfair terms in a contract, such as MIT's no warranty or claim under any circumstances, would simply get ignored. The entire contract isn't void if unfair terms are present, just those terms. I should probably note, the last time I explored this area, the only software licenses I could find that had decent legal terminology where the Creative Commons, everyone else tends to forget to precede broad statements with classifiers like "to the extent permittable by law".