4 ms·

Basically every license out there has some "can't be held liable" clause in it (see the mit license for an easy to find one). Does this mean the license may be

Basically every license out there has some "can't be held liable" clause in it (see the mit license for an easy to find one). Does this mean the license may be invalid entirely in the EU, making it so you actually just can't use the software at all? I know that's how the GPL basically works, if you don't accept the GPL, then you simply have no license at all.

layer8 4y ago
Usually the respective clause just becomes legally void. This is different from you not accepting that clause. It doesn’t invalidate the license as such (even if the license would like that to happen).
- ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
  Isn't that kind of insane? You get to ignore a crucial clause of the license and continue using the software? I mean one day they could also say copyleft is unreasonable and illegal, so now the GPL is just a free for all.
  - layer8 4y ago
    If a sales contract says that, by the way, the seller now owns your first-born, then that clause is void because it’s illegal. It doesn’t however mean that the contract is void and that you have to return what you bought or have to reimburse the seller. It’s the sellers fault that they put an illegal clause into the contract. It’s different from if the law would say that the whole type of contract is illegal.
jart 4y ago
I discussed this with an AI language model (GPT-4), and the general idea I gathered was that in the EU, it's possible that the "no warranty" clause in open source licenses could be invalidated by consumer protection laws, while the rest of the license remains valid. This could potentially expose authors to liability, even as their work continues to be used for free. However, it's important to note that this information came from an AI and should not be considered legal advice. The specific application of these laws may vary depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.

layer8 4y ago

Usually the respective clause just becomes legally void. This is different from you not accepting that clause. It doesn’t invalidate the license as such (even if the license would like that to happen).

ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
Isn't that kind of insane? You get to ignore a crucial clause of the license and continue using the software? I mean one day they could also say copyleft is unreasonable and illegal, so now the GPL is just a free for all.
- layer8 4y ago
  If a sales contract says that, by the way, the seller now owns your first-born, then that clause is void because it’s illegal. It doesn’t however mean that the contract is void and that you have to return what you bought or have to reimburse the seller. It’s the sellers fault that they put an illegal clause into the contract. It’s different from if the law would say that the whole type of contract is illegal.

jart 4y ago

I discussed this with an AI language model (GPT-4), and the general idea I gathered was that in the EU, it's possible that the "no warranty" clause in open source licenses could be invalidated by consumer protection laws, while the rest of the license remains valid. This could potentially expose authors to liability, even as their work continues to be used for free. However, it's important to note that this information came from an AI and should not be considered legal advice. The specific application of these laws may vary depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.