Derrick Coetzee <dcnews@moonflare.com> wrote in message news:<ch60aa$t50$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>...
Hi, I posted this on misc.legal.moderated with no response, so hope to
get some info here. Sorry for the repost.
I was looking over some software licenses, namely the Apache License
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php) and Lucent Pulic
License 1.02 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lucent1.02.php) and
noticed that they disclaim any warranty of title, whereas most software
licenses only disclaim only fitness and merchantability. What confuses
me about this is, if I understand the concept of title, this means they
are asserting that they offer no promise that they are the copyright
holder of the software, and thus no promise that the license is valid at
all! Is this sort of disclaimer really permissible? Does it weaken the
license?
Looks to me like the license conveys such rights as they can convey,
sort of like a quitclaim deed does in real estate. (If I quitclaim a
property to you, I give you such rights as I have (which may be none,
for example if I quitclaim the Brooklyn Bridge to you), and I will not
aid you if somebody comes around claiming he owned the property.)
By not warranting title, they are saying you are on your own: if some
pond scum like SCO claims that they own parts of the software, you get
to defend, and don't go asking them for help.
They are not saying that they do not own or have licensing rights to
the software. If they didn't have title or proper rights, you're
right, they couldn't license it to you. But they're not saying they
don't, they're just saying they will not put their money where their
mouth is by warranting that they do.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
