Re: [epl-discuss] [Topic] No warranty {WAS Copyleft provisions are not o

[Richard Fontana <fontana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
> 
> Am 16.07.2013 um 16:34 schrieb Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>     2.       The lack of any warranty or liability at all, which I have been
>     told many times is in violation of at least German law. 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure there is much the EPL can do about it other than stating that any
> such clause might not apply everywhere and thus, may be invalid or restricted
> for a specific local law but does not invalidate the whole contract of the EPL.

In typical commercial proprietary software licenses that is generally
how it is addressed, in my experience.

EPL 1.0 already has a general severability clause (section 7 para. 1).
I seem to remember Axel Metzger suggesting that putting a savings
clause in the GPL disclaimer provisions wouldn't adequately address
this issue under German law.

In GPLv3, Metzger's concerns were addressed to his satisfaction in the
final section of the license (this provision was mainly drafted by
Eben Moglen):

  If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
  above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
  reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely
  approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection
  with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability
  accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.

While I sort of like that provision I'm not convinced the matter is of
sufficient realistic importance, beyond inclusion of the kind of
language you suggest, to add something like that, but it's worth
considering.

- RF