On Warranties: Part II

In response to the ongoing discussion of our licences’ warranty provision, I’ve decided to raise the issue at our upcoming board meeting.

Meantime, please keep fleshing out what you think our approach to warranties should be. The how is as important as the why. Is there any disadvantage to making a quitclaim-style warranty optional (as opposed to the standard)? Do you think we should have some type of warranty in the licenses, or rather abandon the idea altogether?

Soon we can move the conversation over to our forthcoming Discuss page, where we’ll host a variety of archived email lists dedicated to public development of innovations, license versions, iCommons, and more. For now, please keep posting your comments here. And thanks.

3 thoughts on “On Warranties: Part II”

  1. It’s clear that this issue is directly analogous to the once being faced by Linux from the SCO case: if somebody says “I release this code under the GPL” you either have to trust them, verify, or deal with the consequences.

  2. What follows is only my personal opinion:

    Information comes with no warranty. People expect this; adding a warranty when they’re not looking (or caring) seems unfair. This is how it should be: asking everyone to make sure what they said broke no laws ahead of time would be a burdensome form of prior restraint and sometimes prevent valuable speech.

    When I post to my weblog, I care about how that post will affect me. When someone uses my content in a different way, it’s their responsibility to think about how it affects them. I’m already letting them use my work, I’m not going to do their legal work too.

    Creative Commons licenses should have no warranty by default.

  3. I have some more comments on the issue on my blog, in reply to Joi Ito.

    It seems that I was somewhat premature in my assessment of the Creative Commons position. Right now I am confused and looking ahead to clarification.

Comments are closed.