7 ms·
Isn't this extremely US-centric? In my country, I can't even imagine someone suing (much less winning) for using a piece of software they got for free.
by geon 12y ago
Isn't this extremely US-centric? In my country, I can't even imagine someone suing (much less winning) for using a piece of software they got for free.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- pmontra 12y agoBetter be safe than sorry, in any country.
- kazinator 12y agoWell, the BSD and MIT licenses are named after institutions that are in the US of A. Many popular software licenses are American, and are based in American legal doctrine. Liability related to something which was "free" makes a certain amount of sense. Something given away from free could be harmful. Just because the giver didn't take compensation doesn't mean it's not their fault. Basically, when you give something for free, you're implicitly making a representation that the thing is good. If you don't make any disclaimers, then that representation is all there is. And so if that something you gave away causes harm, your representation now looks like a misrepresentation: you tricked someone into being harmed by your gift. That's what I think is the general idea. If your country doesn't have this sort of concept among its legal doctrines and statutes, that's kind of bad!