3

Ritchey Permissive License v7 states:

provided without warranties of any kind. The authors, owners, and providers will not be held responsible for anything

then states:

When sharing the material with others you take on all responsibilities of and relating to consequences (including warranties, implied warranties, liabilities, and damages),

So what does the second statement accomplish, if the first has already disclaimed all warranties, and other responsibilities, etc?

4

It accomplishes a couple things:

  1. In a sharing chain it attempts to provide cumulative protection against reparations.

Let's pretend for a moment that the second statement doesn't exist. Person A publishes a shell script under the license, and person B downloads it. A bug in the script deletes all of the user's files in select scenarios. If person B decides to sue person A, person A should hopefully be protected by the disclaimer. Now let's expand this scenario. Person B downloads the script, and shares it to person C. Person B or person C could sue person A, but hopefully person A would be protected by the disclaimer. Now lets add that second statement back in. If person B attempts to sue person A, person A is hopefully protected by the disclaimer. If person C attempts to sue person A, person A is hopefully protected by both statements. If person C attempts to sue person B, person B is hopefully protected by the disclaimer. Now lets add another person to the mix. Person C shares the script with person D. If person D decides to sue person A, person A now potentially has 3 layers of protection, person B has 2 layers of protection, and person C has the standard 1 layer of protection. The second statement attempts to create cumulative protection against legal reparations for each person in the sharing chain.

  1. It attempts to protect the owner from reparations when others redistribute without the license included.

Let's say person A publishes a shell script under the license. A bug in the script deletes all of the user's files in select scenarios. Person B then downloads it, and shares it with person C. However person B didn't include a copy of the license when he shared it. Remember the license doesn't require retention of the license. Person B received it with the license so it's likely he saw the disclaimer, and person A is hopefully protected. Person C didn't get a copy of the license though which means she never saw any disclaimer, and therefore nothing was disclaimed to her! The second statement should hopefully protect person A in this scenario from person C. Person B on the other hand may not be protected. The second statement allows for users to share the work without retaining the license, but makes it their risk to take, rather than leaving the script owner responsible for their actions.

Related Reading:

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.