alt Hacker NewsRight? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant.
Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says.
And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.
Replies
When it's in the contract, then it means that when you break the law you both break the law and the contract. SHould it be necessary? Perhaps not, but in some places that makes a meaningful difference.
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant.
Perhaps not. The law, as automatically applied, often include implied warranties.
It's almost like the most effective way to publish without T&Cs is to just, you know, omit the section and publish what you want without T&Cs.
> Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies.
Because the law applies - by that I mean if you don't put a disclaimer in then the law takes the view that you do provide a warranty, etc.
I recently had to confirm to a brokerage that I won’t be using the money I’m withdrawing for any illegal activities.
A sure sign of a legal team or possibly an entire legal system having lost the plot. Hopefully only the former.