| |||||||||||
liabilityliabilityPosted Aug 7, 2003 1:24 UTC (Thu) by mmarkov (subscriber, #4978)Parent article: GPL may be unenforceable under German law (InfoWorld)
His main concern with the GPL is Does it follow that Microsoft's
(Log in to post comments)
liability Posted Aug 7, 2003 15:38 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] His main concern with the GPL is the no-liability clause. What is then the liability of, say, Microsoft?This was my first thought as well. I have none of their products and have never seen the famous EULA, but I have read many times that they refuse to take any liability and that is quite explicit in their licesnse. I have seen the MSFT EULA, and IIRC they have entire paragraphs limiting liability. In fact, I'm not aware of any software license that doesn't contain a clause limiting liability. If this is the sole criteria for saying that the GPL is unenforceable, could we not then infer that most software licenses, both proprietary and free, are also unenforecable?
liability Posted Aug 9, 2003 20:03 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] Whether the MS EULA is enforcable or not changes nothing.The issus is whether GPL is enforcable, the anwser is yes. It would be handy if there were governmental departments for confirming the enfocabiltiy of a license. Not a certification that would say "this license will always win court cases", just a stamp to say "this license isn't self-contradicting non-enforcable garbage". (see my next toplevel post for why the GPL isn't non-enforcable) Ciaran O'Riordan
|
|||||||||||