Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GNU GPL vs Consumer Guarantees Act

[Kesara Rathnayake]

Hi Cascardo,

Thanks for the reply.
Your explanation makes sense.
I think I have to looked into see how NZ Consumer Guarantees act applies
to goods and services distributed for free.

Cheers,
Kesara
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:12:12PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12:31PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > In one of the talks [1] on 2016 Kiwi PyCon (New Zealand's annual Python 
> > conference) [2], the presenter mentioned that GNU GPL's "Disclaimer of 
> > Warranty" is invalid against New Zealand consumer guarantee act [3] which 
> > offers warranty against any goods or services consumed by consumers.
> > 
> > Does that mean if someone sells a GNU GPL software, is there a chance that 
> > license could be invalid?
> > 
> > Can the “Consumer Guarantees acts" like these affect the original authors, 
> > even though they didn't sell the software?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Kesara
> > 
> 
> That's a very good question. Too bad it has been posed as truth, or so
> you seem to have understood the speaker's statement.
> 
> Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
> Further disclaimers: I haven't read the referred act, and don't know NZ
> law.
> 
> Nonetheless, the comments below are generic and may as well apply here.
> And if they don't, I think it's important to try to clarify such kind of
> doubts.
> 
> Now, I just watched the segment, and I guess Tim just meant that it is
> important to know law in general, and how copyright works, but
> unfortunately made the comment about guarantees, and misread the GPL
> that you may not offer any warranty as in "absolutely no warranty".
> 
> Let's shake this GPL thing off first. GPLv2 section 1 says:
> 
> "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
> 
> That is to say that any one who distributes verbatim copies of the
> software may offer warranty. If the law requires you to do so, the GPL
> does not forbid you to.
> 
> Now to your question of whether the license could be invalid, this would
> be in detriment of the consumer, as copyright by default is a "CAN'T".
> You can't copy the software, you can't modify the software, you can't do
> this, you can't do that, in some jurisdictions, one might even interpret
> that you can't use the software, not without the copyright holder
> permission. The license in the tool that copyright holders use to give
> some such permissions. If the license is entirely invalid, then the
> consumer could be in violation of copyright law (usually, civil not
> criminal offense, but watch out for some jurisdictions and some special
> cases).
> 
> Now, if the distribution of the software is done for free, would it be
> fair to require any kind of warranty? Well, in case the law requires
> such warranties any way, the GPL is nicely crafted to protect the author
> as much as possible. Take a snippet of Section 12, for example:
> 
> "IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
> WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
> REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
> DAMAGES, ..."
> 
> Note the "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW". So, if the law doesn't
> require it, the license is advising the user that the author should not
> be held liable for damages. Now, if the law requires some liability,
> then, that should be the most that you would have "UNLESS AGREED TO IN
> WRITING", that is to say, some distributor may offer you extra warranty
> for a fee.
> 
> So, the warranty sections of the GPL are there to protect the author
> from possible liabilities, and it's much more than many other licenses
> do.
> 
> Now, if you want more protection than that, you can refrain from
> distributing any software at all. In fact, there are many other risks
> today for distributing software. There is patent law, and many patent
> trolls out there. There are criminal laws against some kind of software
> in some jurisdictions (DMCA is one example, another one is recent
> Brazilian law against producing or distributing software that allows for
> "computer invasion").
> 
> So I guess that was Tim's intention, to say that we should be aware of
> laws that affect distribution of software.
> 
> Regards.
> Cascardo.
> 
> 
> > References:
> > [1] https://youtu.be/S-Le3PWHqZA?t=696
> > [1] https://nzpug.org
> > [1] 
> > http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/DLM311053.html
> > - --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > iQFCBAEBCgAsJRxLZXNhcmEgUmF0aG5heWFrZSA8a2VzYXJhQGtlc2FyYS5saz4F
> > AlfWf4YACgkQgbKTpleptaHqZQf8CDLszfO/MJViqm6bicPAr8Icr8OWo78Dvh8y
> > L7SjR6OKazweH0oheWhZdqoAKSlz3IZkaEW22LmT8OwRY46vWNNPTlP+Q07tmcyG
> > HKAdKj4a6uvofOGOJYBZSV53ervCXQHj/t3P18ME4jGP1VnZlFUlLpm5kjzxgbuk
> > fHLFwL6ka/9wpGjdAZ+a4eaooSZIhvYJC1NUs3vlpFARfgN/+W7NzEwPTa3q5fbf
> > CkH3jdypGOoBJyft4eL3lhNAhO0upFnbexKJrTmOZaKlPj//fA0hoEj4UOQNpNJH
> > DCEJ909cV7Ab1Cm+/I386ih4UqdkWpzn///xIl3pefy9dMM8dg==
> > =QCQA
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > 



-- 
Kesara Rathnayake

http://kesara.lk | https://fq.nz

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature