[bilalq]

I did a double-take when I read that as well. I went and checked the license under rubygems, and sure enough, it's standard MIT with no warranties.

https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

[bpt3]

I'm willing to bet the people who published that have no idea what they just said, and probably don't understand what the MIT license contains.

[byroot]

They are talking about the rubygems.org package hosting service...

[bpt3]

Right, take a look at Section 8 of the Terms of Service (https://rubygems.org/policies/terms-of-service):

THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED STRICTLY ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS, AND PROVIDER MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SERVICE IS COMPLETE, SUITABLE FOR YOUR PURPOSE, RELIABLE, USEFUL, OR ACCURATE.

What warranty are they providing exactly?

[onionisafruit]

It comes with a 100,000 mile drive train warranty.

[collingreen]

Yeah we've been meaning to talk to you about that warranty actually

[skywhopper]

What warranty does it come with?

[byroot]

https://rubygems.org/policies

[12_throw_away]

Yep right there in the TOS:

a. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED STRICTLY ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS, AND PROVIDER MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE SERVICE IS COMPLETE, SUITABLE FOR YOUR PURPOSE, RELIABLE, USEFUL, OR ACCURATE.

[byroot]

That’s not the only thing though. E.g. the collect PII, so I assume there are regulations to abide by etc.

[charcircuit]

The license is not an accurate way to check if there is a warranty or not.

[spoiler]

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe a silly question: is it possible the software license is different from service warranty? And I guess another thing that comes to mind is that maybe they didn't mean _legal_ warranty, but something that was used colloquially?

[SAI_Peregrinus]

The MIT license is a copyright license. The developer is free to offer a warranty or any other contract they want.