> Do hardware stores need to demand "thou shalt not use this tool to kill people" to their customers to avoid liability for axe murders under such jurisdictions?
Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement.
> I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this
No, warranty disclaimers don’t cover this, because (1) its not a warranty issue, and (2) disclaimers, if they have legal effect at all, effect liability the disclaiming party would otherwise have to the party accepting the disclaimer, not liability the disclaiming party would have to third parties.
> Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement.
Judging by youtube-dl, it seems like it does work that way, at least in my jurisdiction; I guess we'll see if the RIAA doubles down on trying to wipe it from the face of the Earth, but considering there hasn't been much noise, I wouldn't count on it. Also, to my adjacent point, I highly doubt the RIAA would've refrained from attempting to take down youtube-dl even if youtube-dl's license prohibited its users from circumventing DRM with it.
Generally, not, because vicarious liability for battery and wrongful death doesn’t work like, e.g., contributory copyright infringement.
> I'm pretty sure the standard warranty disclaimer in your average FOSS license already covers this
No, warranty disclaimers don’t cover this, because (1) its not a warranty issue, and (2) disclaimers, if they have legal effect at all, effect liability the disclaiming party would otherwise have to the party accepting the disclaimer, not liability the disclaiming party would have to third parties.