Looking the OpenSSL gift horse in the mouth [LWN.net]

Looking the OpenSSL gift horse in the mouth

Posted Sep 26, 2002 8:14 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581)
Parent article: Looking the OpenSSL gift horse in the mouth

From the PRACTICAL point of view, I applaud Sun. Any agreement that keeps lawyers out of everyone's hair is most definitely A Good Thing.

From the semantic point of view, I'm unsure that the clause was actually neccessary. I think in most countries it is accepted that if goods or services are supplied free of charge then the recipient has no right to sue for failures of material or performance. Hopefully Sun included the clause to make this absolutely clear in those countries where this principle does not neccessarily apply.

It would definitely be a better world if similar clauses were not thought neccessary by anyone. When legal action is taken, often both sides lose; only the lawyers profit. As for the "restriction" on "free" software; yes, I can see the point, but only from the legal side.

Is GPL "free"? It has been argued (usually by megacorporations) that the GPL is restrictive in the way that it demands that source code of derivative works be published in the same way. Most of us consider this to be A Good Thing; why cannot we accept Sun's "restriction" in the same spirit?

(Log in to post comments)

Looking the OpenSSL gift horse in the mouth

Posted Sep 26, 2002 14:21 UTC (Thu) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link]

Then again, grocery store bakeries do not give away their day-old donuts for free, and will even fire employees who do. Why? Because if someone got sick from eating one, the store would be liable. Personal experience.

It sounds crazy, giving away something free and then being held liable for anything bad that comes from it, but that is the state of things today.

Looking the OpenSSL gift horse in the mouth

Posted Sep 27, 2002 1:18 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

>Any agreement that keeps lawyers out of everyone's hair is most
>definitely A Good Thing.

If someone's hair is harming other people, it's exactly where lawyers belong.

>I think in most countries it is accepted that if goods or services
>are supplied free of charge then the recipient has no right to sue
>for failures of material or performance.

Not the U.S. Here, you're liable for any damage your negligence causes another human being regardless of whether free goods were involved. That's why the BSD license exists. The BSD license says, "in exchange for this valuable software, you agree to assume the risk of damage that my negligence in writing it causes you." I.e. such software is not gratis.

You may be thinking about warranty. It is true that if you give something away, it doesn't come with any warranty. So unless there's negligence involved, there would be no basis on which the donee could sue you if it doesn't work.

Patents, which are the subject of this clause, are completely unrelated, though. There's probably no country where giving some property to someone for free means he has to let you use his patents.