Status of Vovida VOCAL License?.

[Alexandra White]

Hello all:  

Just following up to find the response from the OSI to Vovida legal
team's answers to the outstanding questions. I submitted these last
Wednesday 8/23 (attached below).  Russ had indicated wanting to provide
approval within 24 hours.  Thanks again.

-Alexandra

Alexandra White wrote:
> 
> Alexandra White wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> --
> Alexandra White
> VA Linux Professional Services
> 408.543.8755 Office
> 408.887.3169 Mobile

-- 
Alexandra White
VA Linux Professional Services
408.543.8755 Office
408.887.3169 Mobile