Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
If they were contracts, you would have to sign them ...
You're misinformed, that is just one of many forms to manifest assent.
Assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct. See
also
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:13269
(Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review)
Right - but surely you get the point: a license doesn't
take away any freedoms of the recipient - therefore
Which license are you talking about?
E.g.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
The [L]GPL (both 2 and 3) purports to impose a whole bunch
of covenants ("conditions" but not "conditions precedent")
> upon licensees.
No it doesn't.
The term "covenant" occurrs once in:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
...where it refers to patent licenses.
A condition is not a covenant.
The "Disclaimer of Warranty" and "Limitation of Liability"
/might/ be regarded as taking away the recipients' rights.
I am not clear about what legal force - if any - those
paragraphs have. Indeed, I doubt they have any legal
force - since there is no obligation to read the license,
*especially* if you are not copying the software.
Are there any precidents for free software authors being
successfully sued over supposedly-implied warranties
on their software?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove lock to reply.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
