kmself at ix.netcom.com kmself at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jan 31 21:18:39 UTC 2001

on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:58:46PM -0800, Carol A. Kunze (ckunze at ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >
> >on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 05:23:14AM -0800, Carol A. Kunze
> (ckunze at ix.netcom.com) wrote:

> >> Given that open source software does not generate license income,
> >> implying a warranty is not reasonable.  Put another way, open source
> >> software cannot even afford to win a warranty lawsuit. 
> >
> >Again, no argument, this is commonly accepted fact.  
> David seems to have a different opinion.
> It is *not*, AFAIU,
> >any rationale for adoption of UCITA.  There are existing conventions,
> >if not legal doctrines, restricting the imposition of implied
> >warrantees for freely performed services -- e.g.:  good samaterian
> >laws -- and, I'm given to understand, for advice, instructions,
> >recipies, technical data, etc., published in books and magazines.
> >This might be an area to explore.  If specific carveouts for free
> >software are required, there are far better vehicles than UCITA to
> >accomplish this task.
> >
> >As you're stating what I believe is a commonly accepted truth in the
> >free software world, I have to ask:  what's your point?
> I'm not sure how I can be any more clear.  As I said in the beginning, "I
> do not believe implied warranties should apply to open source software."  

OK.  Just, knowing your background, thought I'd raise the other flag.
Surprising as it may seem, people have been known to post here with

> How about this:  I think a more appropriate rule would be that there is no
> warranty on open source software unless one is expressly offered. 

I'll ponder this.  I'm not sure it's necessary, or even advantageous.
The present regime appears to work, you suggest as much.  Blanket
license might open avenues for abuse, though frankly no specifics come
to mind at the moment.

My bandwidth will likely be greatly reduced over the next few weeks,
don't expect rapid response.

Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010131/bd8c8864/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list