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.
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. Warranty and permission to modify are separate license terms.
Incorrect. A disclaimer does not authorize removing copyright notices.
Incorrect. A disclaimer does not authorize removing copyright notices.
Incorrect. Commercial-use permission must be checked in the specific license.
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
Read the scope first
Check whether the command acts on the current shell, a new process, an existing process, or a file.
Verify the observable result
Use the supplied command and compare the output with the expected result.