Re: [boost] Boost License Issues

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-03 16:44:54

>From: "Sean Parent" <sparent_at_[hidden]>

> >> 5. Disclaimers such as "AS IS" are strongly discouraged - they are
> >> viewed as a statement that the file may or may not contain other
> >> copyrighted or patented work. Disclaimers weaken the copyrights
> >> granted. 90% of the time this is where I get involved in a review -
> >> usually reviewing the authors history and the specific material to
> >> determine if this is something the author just threw in thinking it
> >> protected them or is specifically intended to mislead. I've had
> >> pieces of code that I've reviewed that are under the GPL that are
> >> handed off "AS IS".
> >
> > Ouch. Can you ask your lawyers how library authors can protect
> > themselves from lawsuits over software malfunction without raising the
> > idea that the software itself may be stolen work?
>
> Go ahead and leave the "AS IS" term - the short summary. Legal would
> appreciate it if you made explicit warranties because then we have someone
> up the license chain to make a claim against if the code is defective in
> some way (contains bugs, viruses, is poor quality, violates IP rights...).
> However, a licensor cannot be expected to assume the potential cost
created
> by a warranty when s/he is not making money off of the code.

Does Adobe make guarantees about their software products (or not disclaim
it), so that someone might hold them responsible, if they find defects in
the code? If not they, who earn money on the code (unless what they give
away), give any guarantees about their code, why should Boost developers,
who give it away for free? At least companies like Adobe sell the code (or
licenses).

I just took a look at Adobe's own license for Acrobat Reader, and it among
other things contain the following section:

--- Start quote ---

4.  No Warranty.  The Software is being delivered to you AS IS and Adobe
makes no warranty as to its use or performance.  ADOBE AND ITS SUPPLIERS DO
NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING
THE SOFTWARE OR DOCUMENTATION.  ADOBE AND ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE NO WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS,
MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IN NO EVENT WILL
ADOBE OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR
SPECIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST SAVINGS, EVEN IF AN
ADOBE REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR
FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY THIRD PARTY.  Some states or jurisdictions do not allow
the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential or special damages,
or the exclusion of implied warranties or limitations on how long an implied
warranty may last, so the above limitations may not apply to you.

--- End quote ---

Is Adobe asking for more from a non-profit community like Boost, than they
are willing to give themselves, for software they sell? This license is for
the free Acrobat Reader, but I doubt the commercial versions are much
different in this respect. In any case, Boost is free, as well. The above
license also has an "AS IS" clause.

> An "AS IS"
> clause is the way to disclaim all warranties. I "just" have to get a VP to
> sign accepting that the code is reasonably safe. So long as boost stays an
> active and trusted community this shouldn't be difficult - the concern
shown
> over IP issues in this whole thread pretty much makes the case.

Isn't the case more one of how much they can depend on support and
development (such as a company or community backing something up), rather
than guarantees about the software being made?

Regards,

Terje