Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup <dak@...>]

Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@gmail.com> writes:

> Usually it does. If I donate anything (and free software is nothing
> else than a free gift) the donee hardly receives any addtional legal
> right to claim non satisfaction of a free product.

Non-satisfaction, sure.  But damage and liability is a different thing.
If you hand out free food on the street, nobody can come back and
complain that it tasted bad, and consequently he lost a good customer
that he gave it to.  But if the food contains salmonella, handing it out
for free does not save you from damage claims.

> Donors are usually protected in that way. I googled to find the latin
> phrase of it, but didn't find it, it went like "the one who gives free
> of heart shall not receive further damage" or something like that. Or
> "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

You better do over here in Germany.  A "gift horse" is not infrequently
marked as "not for human consumption" in its papers (possibly because of
having received medication not fit for human consumption, possibly
because the owner just wished to do so), meaning that you can only let
it be killed for medical reasons.  If it is not suffering any pains, you
are required to keep feeding it (or give it to someone else) regardless
of whether it is still useful for anything.

Sure, that is one area where a lot of people (particularly butchers)
will not look all too closely, but de iure that is the situation.

-- 
David Kastrup