An open-source license contains a clause stating that no warranty is provided.
Which interpretation is appropriate?
A no-warranty clause means the provider does not guarantee quality, fitness for a purpose, or a particular result.
Detailed explanation
Correct. The user accepts that quality and suitability are not guaranteed by that clause.
Incorrect. Warranty and permission to modify are separate license terms.
Incorrect. A disclaimer does not authorize removing copyright notices.
Incorrect. Commercial-use permission must be checked in the specific license.
Try it yourself
An example you can run in a temporary verification environment.
printf '%s\n' 'no warranty does not remove license obligations'Expected result
no warranty does not remove license obligationsKey points
- No warranty
- Quality assurance
- Separate clauses
Notes
- Environment: OSSライセンス条項の概念確認
- Command output formatting can vary slightly by distribution or tool version.
- Run the example in a temporary directory or process when possible.
Foundation review
License permission
The rights a license grants for use, modification, and redistribution.
Copyleft scope
The part of a combined work to which source-sharing conditions apply.
Attribution notice
Information that must remain with redistributed software or documentation.