Hi Cascardo, Thanks for the reply. Your explanation makes sense. I think I have to looked into see how NZ Consumer Guarantees act applies to goods and services distributed for free.
Cheers, Kesara On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:12:12PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12:31PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Hi all, > > > > In one of the talks [1] on 2016 Kiwi PyCon (New Zealand's annual Python > > conference) [2], the presenter mentioned that GNU GPL's "Disclaimer of > > Warranty" is invalid against New Zealand consumer guarantee act [3] which > > offers warranty against any goods or services consumed by consumers. > > > > Does that mean if someone sells a GNU GPL software, is there a chance that > > license could be invalid? > > > > Can the “Consumer Guarantees acts" like these affect the original authors, > > even though they didn't sell the software? > > > > Cheers, > > Kesara > > > > That's a very good question. Too bad it has been posed as truth, or so > you seem to have understood the speaker's statement. > > Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. > Further disclaimers: I haven't read the referred act, and don't know NZ > law. > > Nonetheless, the comments below are generic and may as well apply here. > And if they don't, I think it's important to try to clarify such kind of > doubts. > > Now, I just watched the segment, and I guess Tim just meant that it is > important to know law in general, and how copyright works, but > unfortunately made the comment about guarantees, and misread the GPL > that you may not offer any warranty as in "absolutely no warranty". > > Let's shake this GPL thing off first. GPLv2 section 1 says: > > "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and > you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." > > That is to say that any one who distributes verbatim copies of the > software may offer warranty. If the law requires you to do so, the GPL > does not forbid you to. > > Now to your question of whether the license could be invalid, this would > be in detriment of the consumer, as copyright by default is a "CAN'T". > You can't copy the software, you can't modify the software, you can't do > this, you can't do that, in some jurisdictions, one might even interpret > that you can't use the software, not without the copyright holder > permission. The license in the tool that copyright holders use to give > some such permissions. If the license is entirely invalid, then the > consumer could be in violation of copyright law (usually, civil not > criminal offense, but watch out for some jurisdictions and some special > cases). > > Now, if the distribution of the software is done for free, would it be > fair to require any kind of warranty? Well, in case the law requires > such warranties any way, the GPL is nicely crafted to protect the author > as much as possible. Take a snippet of Section 12, for example: > > "IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR > REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR > DAMAGES, ..." > > Note the "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW". So, if the law doesn't > require it, the license is advising the user that the author should not > be held liable for damages. Now, if the law requires some liability, > then, that should be the most that you would have "UNLESS AGREED TO IN > WRITING", that is to say, some distributor may offer you extra warranty > for a fee. > > So, the warranty sections of the GPL are there to protect the author > from possible liabilities, and it's much more than many other licenses > do. > > Now, if you want more protection than that, you can refrain from > distributing any software at all. In fact, there are many other risks > today for distributing software. There is patent law, and many patent > trolls out there. There are criminal laws against some kind of software > in some jurisdictions (DMCA is one example, another one is recent > Brazilian law against producing or distributing software that allows for > "computer invasion"). > > So I guess that was Tim's intention, to say that we should be aware of > laws that affect distribution of software. > > Regards. > Cascardo. > > > > References: > > [1] https://youtu.be/S-Le3PWHqZA?t=696 > > [1] https://nzpug.org > > [1] > > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/DLM311053.html > > - -- > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > iQFCBAEBCgAsJRxLZXNhcmEgUmF0aG5heWFrZSA8a2VzYXJhQGtlc2FyYS5saz4F > > AlfWf4YACgkQgbKTpleptaHqZQf8CDLszfO/MJViqm6bicPAr8Icr8OWo78Dvh8y > > L7SjR6OKazweH0oheWhZdqoAKSlz3IZkaEW22LmT8OwRY46vWNNPTlP+Q07tmcyG > > HKAdKj4a6uvofOGOJYBZSV53ervCXQHj/t3P18ME4jGP1VnZlFUlLpm5kjzxgbuk > > fHLFwL6ka/9wpGjdAZ+a4eaooSZIhvYJC1NUs3vlpFARfgN/+W7NzEwPTa3q5fbf > > CkH3jdypGOoBJyft4eL3lhNAhO0upFnbexKJrTmOZaKlPj//fA0hoEj4UOQNpNJH > > DCEJ909cV7Ab1Cm+/I386ih4UqdkWpzn///xIl3pefy9dMM8dg== > > =QCQA > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > -- Kesara Rathnayake http://kesara.lk | https://fq.nz
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature