4 ms·

"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR

"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE." Unfit software that causes damage is covered, intent or no.

viro 5y ago
No a license clause can't shield you from an intently malicious act. He's probably getting charged under the CFAA.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Unfit software that causes damage is covered, intent or no. Well, no, an assertion of nonliability isn’t a magical incantation; local law in whatever jurisdiction is applicable may limit the effect of such an assertion; in places with meaningful consumer protection laws there are limits on the ability to disclaim warranties, and even without decent consume protection law it's often impossible to disclaim liability for malicious torts.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Well, no, an assertion of nonliability isn’t a magical incantation; local law in whatever jurisdiction is applicable may limit the effect of such an assertion Did he install this "malware" on people's computers? > with meaningful consumer protection laws there are limits on the ability to disclaim warranties "Consumer"... as in, "someone who bought something"? Oh well, I guess he'll have to pay them all back everything they paid for it. How much, exactly, was that again?
josephcsible 5y ago
I don't see how that matters. Imagine if you hid a bomb in a car, sold it to me as a used car with no warranty, and then remotely detonated the bomb. You'd unambiguously be on the wrong side of the law, and the lack of warranty wouldn't make a bit of difference.

viro 5y ago

No a license clause can't shield you from an intently malicious act. He's probably getting charged under the CFAA.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Unfit software that causes damage is covered, intent or no. Well, no, an assertion of nonliability isn’t a magical incantation; local law in whatever jurisdiction is applicable may limit the effect of such an assertion; in places with meaningful consumer protection laws there are limits on the ability to disclaim warranties, and even without decent consume protection law it's often impossible to disclaim liability for malicious torts.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Well, no, an assertion of nonliability isn’t a magical incantation; local law in whatever jurisdiction is applicable may limit the effect of such an assertion Did he install this "malware" on people's computers? > with meaningful consumer protection laws there are limits on the ability to disclaim warranties "Consumer"... as in, "someone who bought something"? Oh well, I guess he'll have to pay them all back everything they paid for it. How much, exactly, was that again?

josephcsible 5y ago

I don't see how that matters. Imagine if you hid a bomb in a car, sold it to me as a used car with no warranty, and then remotely detonated the bomb. You'd unambiguously be on the wrong side of the law, and the lack of warranty wouldn't make a bit of difference.