Re: [ASIS-1 patch 0/6] Deep review of 'AS IS' disclaimers - part 1

[Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>]

On 6/5/19 6:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> The first batch is from the 'AS IS' category. All patches in this series
> have the same modification of the standard GPLv2 disclaimer.
> 
> Standard disclaimer:
> 
>     this program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
>     but without any warranty without even the implied warranty of
>     merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose
> 
> Modified diclaimer:
> 
>     this program is distributed as is without any warranty of any kind
>     whether express[ed] or implied without even the implied warranty of
>     merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose
> 
> The NO WARRANTY section of the GPLv2 contains:
> 
>     PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
>     EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
>     WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> 
> In my opinion the modified disclaimer contains nothing which is
> substantially different, but I might be wrong as usual.

I agree, they seem to have simply copied disclaimer language from the
GPLv2 and added it to the disclaimer notice. So they aren't adding any
disclaimers beyond what would have applied to the file anyway, and the
SPDX identifier is equivalent to the existing notice.

I'll go ahead and review the patches in this set positively, but I
suggest waiting for at least one lawyer to review before moving ahead
with these patches.

> In case we agree on that, I would amend the changelogs of the individual
> patches with a paragraph explaining our conclusion. Something along the
> lines:
> 
>     The patterns deviate from the standard GPLv2 disclaimer, but the
>     modification does not expand beyond the standard disclaimer and the NO
>     WARRANTY section of the GPLv2. So replacing the license notice
>     including the modified disclaimer with the SPDX license identifier
>     results in the same protections and conditions.
> 
> Feel free to suggest better wording or deeper explanation.

Seems fine to me. Maybe add the word "notice" to the end of the first
sentence? It just seems a little confusing that the paragraph has the
word "disclaimer" referring to both the file notice and the license
itself. Someone else may have a better idea how to clarify.

Allison