5 ms·
> B: Be clearly labelled, in its public-facing information, as being offered as-is, without any implied updates or future development. So if I had a text file
by growse 3y ago
> B: Be clearly labelled, in its public-facing information, as being offered as-is, without any implied updates or future development.
So if I had a text file in the root of my repo that said:
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
Would that be sufficient?
- teddyh 3y agoThat text does not disclaim support, security bugfixes, and future development. On the contrary, all three of those things are probably either heavlily implied or outright stated to be available on the project web site.
- growse 3y agoYou and I are reading "SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION." very differently.
- teddyh 3y agoAt best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases.
- andrewjl 3y ago> At best, that only covers bug fixes. And, as I said, bug fixes are usually implied to be available in future releases Can you explain how you got to that interpretation from that phrasing? > SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. And how is future development and / or support not covered under servicing of that clause?
- teddyh 3y agoFixing defects is a different activity from support and future development, no?
- andrewjl 3y agoWhy is that distinction important? Especially in light of the first sentence of the paragraph that sentence is embedded in. > THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
- infamouscow 3y agoIt also doesn't disclaim the author from writing you a check out of the good will of their heart. I genuinely don't understand what's so difficult to grasp here.
- teddyh 3y ago> * It also doesn't disclaim the author from writing you a check out of the good will of their heart.* Nobody expects that. But people do reasonably expect a project to recieve updates, security fixes, and new releases.
- infamouscow 3y agoI'm not disagreeing with you, you're just wrong. It's not reasonable to expect a project to receive updates, security fixes, and new releases for software projects the author put on the Internet explicitly with a license saying it's warrantied for no purpose, both explicit and implicit.
- teddyh 3y agoI was going to present a fair rebuttal, but you’ve just convinced me that it’s unreasonable for you to expect any answer from me in this debate.
- infamouscow 3y agoThere's nothing to debate. Your starting point is to selectively ignore parts of the authors explicitly chosen license. It's sophistry.
- radiator 3y agoI think it is too long.