On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 4:38 PM Allison Randal <allison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/5/19 11:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > The following modified disclaimer is beyond my competence so I refrain from > > commenting on it and leave it to our lawyer friends to make sense of it. > > > > Standard disclaimer: > > > > this program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but > > without any warranty without even the implied warranty of > > merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose see the gnu general > > public license for more details > > > > Modified disclaimer: > > > > this program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but > > without any warranty without even the implied warranty of > > merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose good title or non > > infringement see the gnu general public license for more details > > > > The extra bit is: "good title or non infringement" > > My understanding is that the warranties of title and noninfringement are > standard implied warranties, so GPLv2 already disclaims them by > disclaiming any implied warranties. But, this seems more legally > nuanced, so I'll wait to review until some of the lawyers comment. Unfortunately it is not clear. Though this is not my view, one could argue that the warranty disclaimer provision in GPLv2 itself is inadequate to disclaim implied warranties that are not specifically mentioned, based on commercial law in the US, or at least, specifically, the implied warranties of title and noninfringement. I would have to assume that anyone who bothered to add disclaimers of the implied warranties of title and noninfringement into the standard GNU GPL license notice (which does not mention them) did so because they believed the standard language in the notice and the license itself was -- or might be -- deficient. I think therefore that either these disclaimer notices should be kept, unless the original copyright holder associated with the notice agrees otherwise. Richard
