discuss: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)

[Mahesh T Pai]

Robert Samuel White wrote:

> I agree that this should be changed; distributors of modified versions should
>  be able to disclaim their liability as well.

(some semantic hair splitting first)
Rather, it is the disclaimer which should disclaim distributors'/modifiers'
liability.  Disclaimers which are part of unmodifiable licenses should not
require something to be done by the distributor/modify-er.

> The disclaimer is only necessary because there are people out there that will
>  sue you for anything they can and I really don't have time for frivolous
> lawsuits;

Disclaimers do not protect you from a lawsuit.  *Nothing* prevents anybody from
filing a suit against you.  The disclaimer protects you in the event of a suit.

> What would you propose?  Simply removing the "to the standard package" part
> of the sentence?

No, remove the first 'Robert Samuel White' from the disclaimer. That way every
person who is potentially liable, including Robert Samuel White are are
protected.  Of course, I am open to other suggestions also ... but they might be
more verbose.

Re. PHP license, I do not know if that one is OSS certified.

Regards,
Mahesh T Pai


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3