Why we should not allow to add 3rdparty support to product infos

[usta]

I'm strictly against adding 3rd party support info directly to our projects ( unless that 3rdparty support is mentioned in related product's webpage).

This will just bring us responsibilities and in many countries this can be a possible reason to get sued because of if some harm happens to customer ( for example missing support or any Unkept promises ).
So from my side strict 👎

We are well aware that our primary goal is to assist our users, but we must not forget that if such an action leads to potential problems or irreversible issues, we are taking on that responsibility. If we set aside the issue of responsibility, there are also very important legal implications to consider.

[usta]

@marcwrobel @BiNZGi @captn3m0

[ljharb]

Can you elaborate on in which countries it's the case that simply linking to another site would create legal liability? That seems like it'd make most of the internet effectively illegal, including social media sites.

[marcwrobel]

I don't quite understand the legal implications we could face (but I am not a lawyer ;)) and I tend to agree with @ljharb.

About the main subject, which is whether or not we should mention third-party support on endoflife.date, we don't have a very well defined policy. I usually accept contributions only if:

• the third-party provider is clearly mentioned in related product's website,
• the third-party provider is well-known (which is very hard to assess, especially if I am not familiar with the product).

The other contributions are rejected as endoflife.date is not a mean to advertise for third-party providers IMO.

In any case I think our policy should be clearly stated in https://endoflife.date/contribute.

[usta]

* the third-party provider is clearly mentioned in related product's website,

* the third-party provider is well-known (which is very hard to assess, especially if I am not familiar with the product).

Thats the what i want to say. Otherwise some guy who just says our company support this that product 100 years , will we add that guy ? Also to get accepted i mean the original product also needs to give credits to that 3rd party by putting even a small line in its product's webpage/documentaion

[ljharb]

That requirement is fine, but I fail to see why there's even a shred of liability concern. You can link to whatever you want.

[BiNZGi]

From my view our main goal "Be helpful" is met even if we add and refer to 3rd parties for special support. We need to make sure that the 3rd party support is described and clearly stated that it is provided by someone else.

Next steps:

• Put together a list of affected products.
• Discuss what are problematic things by product.
• Add a section to https://endoflife.date/contribute or https://github.com/endoflife-date/endoflife.date/wiki/Guiding-Principles to explain the rules for adding and mentioning third party support.

[aangelinsf]

Of course, not legal advice but I think ChatGPT's answer is helpful. My interpretation is that a simple link bears no legal responsibility. Anything more, such as an iframe, might.

---

Me: Assume there is a site that contains a directory of products. Is there any liability for linking to a different site that provides support for any of the products?

---

ChatGPT:
The question of liability for linking to another site that provides support for products can be complex and depends on several factors, including the nature of the link, the content of the linked site, and the jurisdiction in which the site operates. Here are some key considerations:

1. Nature of the Link

• Direct Links vs. Framing: Simply providing a hyperlink to another site is generally considered acceptable and is unlikely to incur liability. However, if the link is framed in a way that makes it appear as if the linked content is part of your site, this could lead to legal issues.
• Context of the Link: If the link is presented in a misleading way or implies endorsement of the linked site, this could potentially lead to liability.

2. Content of the Linked Site

• Legality of Content: If the linked site contains illegal content or infringes on intellectual property rights, linking to it could expose you to liability, especially if you are aware of the illegal content.
• Reputation and Misrepresentation: If the linked site misrepresents its relationship with your site or the products, this could lead to claims of defamation or false advertising.

3. Jurisdiction

• Local Laws: Different jurisdictions have varying laws regarding liability for links. In some places, there are safe harbor provisions that protect website owners from liability for user-generated content or links to third-party sites.
• International Considerations: If the linked site is based in a different country, international laws and treaties may also come into play.

4. Best Practices

• Disclaimers: Including a disclaimer stating that you do not endorse the linked site can help mitigate potential liability.
• Regular Monitoring: Regularly check the content of the linked site to ensure it remains appropriate and legal.
• Clear Communication: Clearly communicate the nature of the link and the relationship (or lack thereof) with the linked site.

Conclusion

In general, linking to another site that provides support for products is not inherently liable, but it is essential to consider the context, content, and legal framework surrounding the link. Consulting with a legal professional for specific advice tailored to your situation is always recommended.

[witchcraze]

Interesting discussion. Let me add comment after a long time.

Personally, I do not like adding third-party support information directly to each page.
I’m concerned that mixing support from different providers on a single page will male misunderstandings.
I think 3rd party extended support is a type of distribution, and some conpany will switch 3rd vendor distribution sometime.

How about separating pages by vendor like OpenJDK distributions ?
By creating pages like "XXXX extended support by XXXX", each support will be clear.

But some rule may need to prevent much commercial contents.

[captn3m0]

Separating pages also increases maintainance burden. I feel like the confusion problem is real, but solvable with a bit of effort.

[AndreAngelantoni]

"I’m concerned that mixing support from different providers on a single page will make misunderstandings."

What sort of misunderstandings? I feel that any user interested in support would click through to the supporting company website to get all the details. I doubt they would make a decision with just the information on these pages.

[witchcraze]

What sort of misunderstandings? I feel that any user interested in support would click through to the supporting company website to get all the details. I doubt they would make a decision with just the information on these pages.

Personally, I strongly agree. User should research and compare.
However, unfortunately, there are people who do not do so.

I have seen people who continue using third-party support without realizing that the third-party support differs from the original support.
And this might be only my personal experience, but recently, I've noticed that quite a few people aren't aware that certain software is provided and supported by multiple vendors.

I felt that it would be better to clearly separate pages to reduce misunderstandings for such a users.