Answers to Vovida Questions

[Alexandra White]

Hello:  Below are the series of outstanding questions for Vovida (raised
by Brian, Larry, and Russ) and the responses from the legal team.   Let
me know if we need further clarification  from Vovida before OSI
approval can be granted.  Thanks again, everyone, for your prompt
attention; I appreciate it. -Alexandra  

> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 
> >That's *still* not answering the question of why limiting it to $1000 is
> better than limiting it to $0.
> 
> Answer from Vovida legal team:
> 
> >Courts generally disfavor damages limitations.  In some circumstances in
> some jursidications they may be entirely unenforceable.  Vovida's rationale
> for including a limited remedy in its proposed language in lieu of a total
> exclusion of all possible remedies is to increase the liklihood that a court
> *when called upon* would enforce the limitation.
> 
> Alexandra White wrote:
> 
> >What effect does the author of those changes hope to achieve?  If you have any further detail you'd like to provide on this issue, please send it onto me.
> 
> Answer from Vovida legal team:
> 
> >The differences from BSD are basically limited to the following:
> 
> (a) We've added language at paragraph number 3 and added a paragraph number
> 4.  This language is taken straight from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Apache
> license.  Note, however, that we have not included the language found in
> paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Apache license (so often found offensive)
> requiring attribution of authorship separate and apart from the copyright
> notice itself.
> 
> (b)  We've modified the damages exclusion language to omit "direct" damages
> from the list of excluded forms of damages and we've added a dollar
> limitation damages.
> 
> The rationale for these changes is as follows (re-stated from above).
> Courts generally disfavor damages limitations.  In some circumstances in
> some jursidications they may be entirely unenforceable.  Cisco's rationale
> for including a limited remedy in its proposed language in lieu of a total
> exclusion of all possible remedies is to increase the liklihood that a court
> when called upon would enforce the limitation.
> 
> (c) We've included an explicit exclusion of the UCC implied warranties of
> title and non-infringement.  Failure to *explicitly* disclaim such implied
> warranties is more likely to give a court (especially one applying the
> Uniform Commercial Code, Division 2, to the license) reason to treat the
> licensor as having implicitly given the warranties, again exposing the
> licensor to greater liability.