From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license From: C H Forsyth In-Reply-To: <200306171604.h5HG4qCU024345@cvs.openbsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:02:02 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cc439892-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 /* * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE * * 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. */ if you say ``permission ... is granted, provided that [you do/behave thus and so]...' is that not a form of contract? (even if there isn't a Party of the First Part and a Party of the Second Part and a Sanity Clause.) whether a contract is VALID expressed in a given way or with/without particular terms is another large matter. if my dom.ain is in a country within certain legal jurisdictions, can i actually DISCLAIM all that. for instance in England we cannot avoid liability for negligence or `wilful default', and nearly always must make that clear. ------- it seems to me that the aim of clause 4 in the Lucent Hidden License is to ensure that: given that the Contributors have made their contribution with as little warranty and guarantees as they can possibly get away with, if someone subsequently decides to distribute it and ALSO offer extra warranties or guarantees or other forms of support, and someone takes them up on it but they end up feeling worse for it, the responsibility rests with the supplier who made the later offer. thus the original Contributors are safe from being held responsible for what someone else does with it (even if the original code was at fault) IF that person makes extra claims, offers, guarantees, etc. the rationale is that if you claim something the original contributor didn't claim it's your responsibility to check the claim and make good.