Code With "No Guarantee"/"No Liability" Clause

Question

I've seen code from time to time that has a clause in the license or at the top of the code that mentions that the author is not liable and does not guarantee that the code is fit for production, or something to that effect.

I'm no expert in legality and licensing, I'm just wondering why this is done. Have there actually been cases where one party sues another for using openly available code and claiming it didn't do what it was intended to do? That seems pretty stupid and at the same time funny to me. But of course I ask this to resolve my ignorance on this issue. I've just been wondering about that for a while now, I figured I'd ask someone that knew.

I just read this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/935973/iphone-individual-developer-liability

Wondering if anyone can elaborate.

Answer 1

It's just lawyers trying to cover their backsides. Of course consumer law generally says that goods must be fit for purpose. But does one annoying bug mean it's not fit for purpose? Only many hundreds of hours of lawyer time seem to be able to answer such questions.

Answer 2

Well, there have been lawsuits because people burned themselves with hot coffee. Granted, the coffee in question was really overly hot, but still, some people will sue anyone that might remotely be connected with an incurred loss, so why not software?

Now, if you put a no guarantee, no liability clause, you have something with which to defend yourself if you do get sued. If not, you'll have to prove there was not reasonable expectation of guarantee/liability, and, depending on the local law, that might not even be possible.

In fact, such clauses aren't valid in some places.

Answer 3

In the United states, there is a law that grants the purchaser of a product an implied warranty whereby the seller grants that the product is covered by a warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular use. These mean that the product is of sufficient quality to be worthy of sale to the buyer, and that to the extent the seller knows what the buyer wishes to use the product for, the seller believes the product is fit for that use.

When you're buying physical products in, for example, a home improvement store, this is totally reasonable. It's fair to expect that the power tools are built to be safe enough to use, and that if a seller directs you to a particular type of plumbing, that he believes it is the right sort of plumbing for the job you are asking about. If either of the conditions fail, then you as a buyer have an implied warranty for that, and may sue the seller for damages under that warranty.

This is a little trickier for software, to the point that almost all software publishers explicity disclaim that and any other warranty. Software is very difficult to judge in terms of its level of craftsmanship. It's basically impossible to tell if something about it is weak, until that is, it fails for its intended user. By then it's too late for the seller to decide to recommend another product. For this reason, software publishers normally put the responsibility of determining if a piece of software is the right one to use squarely on the buyer.