|
|
|
|
|
|
by smarx007
1914 days ago
|
|
|
I think MIT license only claims the code I wrote is provided under MIT (that's why you also have to include a NOTICES file listing other library licenceses in addition to the LICENSE file). It's not like they put MIT header and their name on that XML file. > then they would have the right to sue the author of the gem whose false claim got them in trouble I think this is where a useless all-caps text comes handy: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND [...]
AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE. Noninfringement is mentioned right there. It literally says that I DO NOT promise you that my code that I license to you under MIT (in good faith, ofc) does not infringe anyone's rights. |
|
|
The problem is that a license is overridden by local law if there is a conflict. For example suppose that there is a law saying there is an implied warranty that goods sold are yours to sell, and you sold a stolen good "as is". In that case the law wins and the buyer can still sue you for having sold tem stolen goods.
And as https://www.klemchuk.com/legal-insights/warranty-against-inf... explains, a common local law is an implied warranty against infringement on others' intellectual property. Which a copyright violation would qualify as.
As always, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. If something like this arises in practice, you should consult a lawyer familiar with the laws of the venue that the case will be decided in to find out whether any laws apply, and to what extent the generic liability disclaimer won't actually provide protection.