Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Can't offer a warrenty on GPL code? | 221 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Can't offer a warrenty on GPL code?

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:28 AM EDT

That's a weird statement. It says you can't offer a warrenty on GPL code.

Now I know that warrenties are unheard of in software, but it still seems
strange.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can't offer a warrenty on GPL code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 04:37 AM EDT
- Can't offer a warrenty on GPL code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:39 AM EDT

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny ...

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT

"This all feels like lawyers digging a deeper hole."

All the way to China they are...

Really, really stupid on their part when you contemplate it.

It's sort of a hint when <b><i>Verizon</i></b> *CAVES*
on a GPL compliance issue like they did with busybox- they've got the resources
to field lawyers that could conceivably knock holes in the license. They opted
to settle for quite a bit more than the lawyers would've cost them. Same with
Actiontec.

The reality is...you don't need cash for remuneration for a derivative
works/publication license to be in effect or for you to be held liable to it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )