Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license

[Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>]

> Since we're a big company with seemingly big pockets (though mostly empty
> these days) and we do get sued a lot as a result.  Whether or not we're
> in the right its still damed expensive.  Therefore, we can't release
> software without the cover your ass clauses.

Then why don't you guys just use a standard warranty disclaimer then?

 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Disclaimers of the above form occur on thousands and thousands of
files from some very large organizations... like CMU or MIT or UCB, on
very large software packages which many of you might have used in
whole or in part, like MACH, X11, or BSD.  Disclaimers like this have
worked fine for an entire industry.

Why are Lucent and IBM so special, that instead of having a simple
warranty disclaimer, their licenses instead need to make threats and
assertions of possible reprocussions to distributers? (Sorry, that is
how I view these licenses, and I am not likely to change my viewpoint,
since much of this comes from a distrust of corporations).

By the way, since you mention IBM, postfix is in the same situation --
we can't distribute it on our CDs.  If I were to put it on a CD, and
various possible events occur which are out of my control, the license
has put me on notice that I could be sued.  I don't accept such a
thing.  I consider it a threat to our project's continued existance as
a developer and provider of free software (not just OpenBSD, but
OpenSSH too).

I am sorry for the strong minded way in which I am approaching this,
but I am very dissapointed that after years of requesting that the
plan9 c compiler become free so that we can start extending it and
working with it... that we could be rebuffed in such a way because the
lawyers have not been properly reined in.

I know you wanted this to be really free.  Yet, thus far this is a
failure.

http://www.vitanuova.com/company/products.html claims a desire to
address complexity.  Why not in licenses too?  I quote a sample
license again, of a form that has been used by many many organizations
for decades to make their software free.  So free, that such things
are all over HP routers and switches and cisco pix firewalls, and who
knows where else.

---



Below is an example license to be used for new code in OpenBSD,
modeled after the ISC license.

It is important to specify the year of the copyright.  Additional years
should be separated by a comma, e.g.
    Copyright (c) 2003, 2004

If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to
add further restrictions.

/*
 * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */