🚀 go-pugleaf

I lost his name, because I originally sent this as a reply (it bounced), but
In article <45971@oliveb.olivetti.com> the poster wrote:
>  Note that the
>GNU "license" has not been tested in court.  If I do some work
>derived from GNU software (and distribute it) thinking that the GNU
>license protects me from getting ripped off in some unethical way (or
>from being held liable in some suit), I'd end up really really sad if
>that weren't the case.  That is, I know that I'm ethical, but do I
>have any guarantee that (a) all users of my code will be ethical and
>(b) I can do anything about it if they aren't?

I've been following this debate over the GNU license more out of intellectual
curiosity than anything.  I've never sold any software or used any gnu tools
myself.  I have posted  some articles to comp.misc, espressing my opinions
as to the enforceability of the copyright aspects of the gnu license, but
your article and another by Peter da Silva (I think) suggest some concern
about the validity of the warranty disclaimer as well.  Other than being
held liable in a suit for breach of warranty, though, is there some other
way a software developer who gives away software can get ripped off by
unethical users?

>If I could require that users sign a license before getting a copy,
>I'd be in much better shape; this shrink-wrap stuff sure cuts down on
>the time and hassle, but what if it carries no legal force?

There are lots of arguments that various provisions in the so-called shrink
wrap licenses are unenforceable.  The arguments are based on the Uniform
Commercial Code, the pre-emptive nature of the US copyright law, public
policy, and some specific state laws which dictate what kinds of provisions
may be included in such licenses.  If you're really interested, I'd suggest
you read the article in the Louisanna Law Review, vol. 48 (Spring '87) on
pp. 87-128.  Any local law school library should have a copy, I think.

John P. Kozma
kozma@comus.cs.tulane.edu